PC Minutes 10/26/11 DRAFT
ITEM NO. 6A REZONING RM15 TO RM24; 15 ACRES; 4100 W 24TH PL (SLD)
Z-8-12-10: Consider a request to rezone approximately 15 acres from RM15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) to RM24 (Multi-Dwelling Residential), located at 4100 W 24th Place. Submitted by BG Consultants, Inc., for Remington Square LC, property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 6B SITE PLAN; REMINGTON SQUARE APARTMENTS; 4100 W 24TH PL (SLD)
SP-9-56-11: Consider a Site Plan for Remington Square Apartments, located at 4100 West 24th Place. Submitted by BG Consultants, Inc., for Remington Square LC, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Sandra Day presented items 6A & 6B together.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Matt Gough, Barber Emerson, said under the Kansas Rezoning Statute if a request for rezoning was consistent with the land use plan or land use element of the comprehensive plan the request was deemed to be reasonable. He gave the brief history of the project. He said it conformed to the Comprehensive Plan and the RM24 request met all Golden Factors. He said Remington Square was 100% occupied and there was a waiting list. He said the interior landscaping in the plan was 46% higher than what the Code required. He said denial of the request would be inconsistent with Horizon 2020 and the Inverness Park District Plan that was just approved.
Commissioner Belt inquired about the need for this type of development in the community and if there was data to support that.
Mr. Gough said there was a waiting list for Remington Square Apartments. He said he did not have knowledge of other apartments but that there was a need for one bedroom low intensity apartments.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Larry Northrop, said he spoke with City Commissioner Mike Amyx about why the land was not built on with the approval of RM15 zoning. He wondered how many properties would be coming back for increased zoning. He felt that in twenty years these would become low income housing that would affect the neighborhood significantly.
Ms. Marci Leuschen said she did not realize the Inverness Park District Plan had been approved. She said many neighbors did not want more apartments in the area and that if the applicant wanted RM24 zoning they should have asked for that in the first place. She pointed out on the overhead map where here house was. She expressed concern about increased traffic and lower property values.
Ms. Jamie Hulse, Sunflower Park Neighborhood Association, expressed concern about increased density. She said there was no neighborhood support for the high density zoning of RM24 in the Inverness Park District Plan. She said City Commission directed staff one year ago to work with the neighbors to come up with a plan that the neighborhood could support. She said there was a consensus among the neighbors that multi-family was not wanted. She said maxing out the density and then asking to build more units did not meet the definition of infill. She said the entire development between Clinton Parkway and the Park Creek area was more intense than planned. The neighborhood supported the Hy-Vee commercial development to eliminate the possibility of more multi-family at that location and should not be penalized now for that support. She felt zoning should be predictable and people should be able to buy a home or build an apartment complex, such as The Legends, and not be worried neighboring properties could double in density. She felt it would set a dangerous precedent for other apartment complex owners who will see it as an opportunity to increase density on their properties as well. She stated trash, traffic, and noise have increased with additional apartments. She went over the number of police calls for the apartments in the area. She said that tenants and renters were not invested in the neighborhood.
Mr. Davis Loupe said the neighborhood was worn out of coming to meetings over the past few years. He said the neighborhood did not want more multi-family. He said the site was already developed and that nothing had been done with the open space. He said most people in the neighborhood supported the commercial rezoning but not at the expense of having more multi-family. He said special assessments were replaced when the site was bought and rezoned RM15. He said there were other places in town that people could rent. He felt the property should be left the way it was.
Mr. Scott Myers said he worked on the Inverness Park District Plan and did not support additional rezoning. He asked the Commission to deny the rezoning and leave original plan alone. He asked that better site planning approvals be adopted to prevent other builders from doing the same thing in the future.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Gough displayed a map on the overhead of the home locations of all the people who wrote letters. He also displayed property values on the overhead which showed an overall 1% decrease in the valuation, which was consistent with county averages. He stated RM24 zoning was not requested back in 2007-2008 because there was no way to know how popular the apartment would be.
Commissioner Hird inquired about comment made by the public about RM24 density being built on 7 acres.
Mr. Gough said that was not correct under the Code. He said the property size was 15 acres. He stated the Code measures the number of dwelling units on the property and that was how the density was measured.
Commissioner Liese said in the packet there were disturbing photos of deteriorated sidewalks and abandoned construction materials.
Mr. Gough said he did not know when the pictures were taken but the good news was that if the project moved forward there would be a site plan with conditions of maintenance. He said the City had the ability to enforce site plans.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Finkeldei asked staff to respond to issue of RM15 zoning in 2008 and building on part of the site.
Mr. McCullough said staff reviews site plans per Code and the site plan maximized the density in terms of the dwelling units per acre. He said it was the applicant’s decision and choice to design this and it was Code compliant. He stated it could have been four times as intense with the same number of units with up to four bedrooms.
Commissioner Burger asked if the applicant could have built 3-4 story apartment buildings.
Mr. McCullough said there was a 45’ height limit.
Commissioner Liese inquired about the police reports.
Ms. Day said the police report numbers provided were raw numbers. She said the police officer who provided the information recognized the apartment complex had only been there a year but that it could be the tenant mix or smaller units. The police officer stated there were less calls there than the other two.
Commissioner Liese inquired about the traffic study.
Ms. Day said traffic circles were added as part of the original infrastructure improvements. She said the traffic circles slow traffic and help make that transition into less intense residential areas. She said the traffic study was provided with the initial development and that the second traffic study addendum was provided with this project. She said another traffic study was done with Hy-Vee and there were specific improvements for that traffic that would benefit Crossgate.
Commissioner Liese asked if the police officer she spoke with about the crime calls was less concerned with these apartment units.
Ms. Day said yes.
Commissioner Britton asked if the developer could renovate the buildings later to three and four bedroom apartments.
Ms. Day said there would have to be a revised zoning. She said the applicant would have to go back through the full public hearing process to remove the conditions.
Commissioner Britton asked if that was also true for the existing one bedroom apartments.
Ms. Day they could renovate the current apartments but that it was unlikely.
Commissioner Burger asked audience members to raise their hand if they were present when the Inverness Park District Plan was approved. (One person raised their hand.) Several others said they wrote letters.
Commissioner Singleton said this was a difficult issue and she did understand the position of the neighborhood. She said she appreciated the comments but did support the rezoning and site plan. She stated the applicant could have built three to four bedroom apartments and the developer chose not to do that. She said the project was consistent with Horizon 2020 and the Inverness Park District Plan. She said it serves as a distinct buffer between the larger apartments in the area and single-family homes. She said when she looks at the area she could not imagine what else would go there. She said Parks & Recreation does not want to make it a park. She felt the community needed housing for young professionals. She said she would vote in favor of the rezoning and site plan.
Commissioner Britton said this was a tough issue. He said the applicant discussed a Kansas Statute taking about a rezoning request complying with the Inverness Park District Plan was presumed to be reasonable. He said the kind of vocal opposition heard from the neighborhood overcomes that presumption. He said it seemed like the neighborhood had been very vocal about their opinions. He had concerns about the proliferation of apartments in Lawrence. He felt there was good reason to limit the things they consider sometimes and that it was not easy to undo what was done. He said the Inverness Park District Plan talked about limiting additional multi-family uses in the area, which he felt was inconsistent. He said plans were good but were not the law and he would oppose the rezoning and hoped something better could go there that better respects the neighbors. He felt they needed to respect the public process and be responsive to that.
Commissioner Blaser said density was an interesting discussion and meant a lot of things. He said the units would not be seen from Inverness. He agreed that the sidewalk should be repaired. He said he could not find any reason to deny the application. He said Planning Commission function was land use and he believed this was the best thing that could happen in that area for land use.
Commissioner Burger thanked the public for attending and writing letters. She said there was an approved district plan in light of those comments and wishes. She said in her mind one bedroom units were not multi-family. She said she could support it because the plan put those restrictions on that area and because she did not consider one bedroom development as strictly multi-family. She said the developer could have built three to four stories and did not. She said as far as the broken sidewalk she could understand the developers hesitation knowing that there was a desire to develop the area. She felt the construction debris should have been removed from the site. She said as far as she could tell this would be the end of the expansion within the neighborhood of apartment zoning. She said when she drove around the neighborhood she felt there was adequate buffering with Inverness and Crossgate. She stated the way the neighborhood was designed people living in the apartments would not have a reason to be driving through the neighborhood. She said she would have the same concern about it becoming low income housing in the future but not because of the rezoning, because of the site plan. She said the site plan was the bare minimum and did not do anything to endear itself to the neighborhood. She said aesthetically it lacked a lot.
Commissioner Belt said there have been discussions in the past year of changing market conditions. He said the significant neighborhood opposition to the project resonated with him. He felt there were inconsistencies in the Inverness Park District Plan. He said he voted against the Inverness Park District Plan and felt he should be consistent and vote in opposition of this project.
Commissioner Liese said Planning Commission was charged with the responsibility of understanding Horizon 2020, Inverness Park District Plan, and Golden Factors, and that it was a complex and difficult process. He felt he had to vote in favor of this because it was consistent with Horizon 2020 and the Inverness Park District Plan. He felt the broken sidewalk and empty field with construction debris was a big mistake on the part of the developer. He said the developer put in one bedroom units and limited the height. He said he did not like roundabouts but it did take some care of traffic. He said typically the community that shows up to Planning Commission meetings are most likely unhappy and he wished they could hear both sides. He said in the absence of that he assumed some people would benefit and appreciate the apartments. He said he was forced to vote in favor of the proposal.
Commissioner Hird thanked the public for coming out and providing their input. He said the rezoning was compliant with Horizon 2020 and the Inverness Park District Plan. He said they do deviate from Horizon 2020 and district plans from time to time. He did not feel that vocal opposition was a fact to say a rezoning was unreasonable. He said they don’t hear from the other people in the community and that it was Planning Commissions job was to look after the 100,000+ people of the community. He said he conditional zoning limiting the type of structures was a significant and major concession. He said the Inverness Park District Plan was approved recently and that was a huge factor for him. He was surprised that traffic was not an issue but that the experts have said it’s capable of handling this type of traffic. He said one bedroom units had less of an impact than what they could have built on the property. He found the concern about the area turning into low income housing to be offensive and felt that low income people should not be banished to East Lawrence. He asked the applicant to fix the sidewalk. He wished there was an alternative to not approving more apartments in Lawrence. He said to him the project was almost not an apartment project because it was single bedroom limited structures. He said if he had the means to vote against more apartments he thought he would do so.
ACTION TAKEN on Rezoning Item 6A
Motioned by Commissioner Singleton, seconded by Commissioner Blaser, to approve the rezoning request, Z-8-12-10, for 15.171 acres from RM15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) to RM24 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. As a means to implement the recommendation of the Inverness Park District Plan, the City Commission shall review and approve any site plan application prior to issuance of a building permit on the subject property.
2. Building types shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) stories and the maximum number of bedrooms per unit shall be one (1) bedroom
Motion carried 7-2, with Commissioners Belt and Britton voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Davis voted in the affirmative.
PUBLIC HEARING on Site Plan Item 6B
Ms. Jamie Hulse encouraged the developer to install a sprinkler system for landscaping.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired about landscaping.
Ms. Day said the applicant does add more landscape than what typically shows up on the site plan. She said the Code allows substitution of trees for shrubs. She said a number of developers do add significant landscaping. She said it was a development choice but it does meet Code.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked the property owner, Mr. Tim Stultz, what he thought of adding a sprinkler system.
Mr. Tim Stultz said he would consider it.
Commissioner Liese asked if they could include a condition regarding a sprinkler system.
Mr. McCullough said the Code did not require it but does encourage it. He said it could be added as a condition.
Commissioner Blaser inquired about the sidewalk repair.
Mr. McCullough said he was not sure how the sidewalk condition was created and not sure if that was after the certificate of occupancy was issued.
Commissioner Blaser felt there should be screening on the electrical meters.
Ms. Day said it was reflected in the conditions.
ACTION TAKEN on Site Plan Item 6B
Motioned by Commissioner Liese, seconded by Commissioner Singleton, to approve the Site Plan for multi-dwelling residential development at 4100 W 24th Place and forwarding the request to the City Commission with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following conditions completed prior to the release of the site plan for building permits:
1. Prior to the release of the Site Plan for issuance of building permits the applicant shall:
a. Receive approval for public improvements plans.
b. Receive approval for a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3), Per City Code Chapter IX Article 9-903(B).
c. Replace any dead street trees and interior landscaping if existing.
2. Prior to the release of the Site Plan for issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a revised site plan to include the following notes and changes:
a. Provision of a revised landscape plan to include additional drought tolerant species for Street Trees listed in the staff report per City Staff approval.
b. Provision of a note that states: “Maintenance of street trees to include watering as needed is the responsibility of the property owner. Dead or dying street trees shall be replaced with species included in the landscape plan planting schedule.”
c. Provision of a revised drawing to show screening of mechanical equipment attached to the sides of buildings.
3. Provision of an adequate irrigation system to support high quality landscaping.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if the language ‘adequate irrigation’ left flexibility.
Commissioner Liese said he meant to keep it ambiguous.
Mr. McCullough said it would go to City Commission next. He said Clinton Parkway had street trees that were high above and may be difficult to get to based on topography. He asked if that would include the parameter trees, street trees, and retrofitting the existing landscaping there.
Mr. Stultz said he would install an irrigation system in the entire area.
Commissioner Liese said a lot of the neighborhood resistance was due to how the property looked today.
Ms. Day said the street trees along Clinton Parkway were in the public right-of-way and that the trees were hand watered by the City.
Commissioner Burger expressed concern that most of the audience members opposed to the rezoning walked out after rezoning and did not stay for the site plan.
Motion carried 8-1, with Commissioner Belt voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Davis voted in the affirmative.