Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning Department

TO:	Mike Wildgen, City Manager
FROM:	Sheila M. Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director
CC:	David Corliss Debbie Van Saun
Date:	February 23, 2006
RE:	UPR requirements for First Serve Tennis, 5200 Clinton Parkway

First Serve Tennis (formerly Sport-2-Sport), owned by Mike Elwell, has proposed the acquisition of a portion of the adjacent Dance City property at 5150 Clinton Parkway and a portion of the City’s property to the north. The proposed land acquisitions will facilitate his plans to expand the existing First Serve Tennis center to provide more indoor tennis courts and to establish new outdoor tennis courts to the east of the existing building (north of Dance City).

I have reviewed his request and determined that the property will need to be replatted to create one lot for the new development. This will involve a replat of his existing property (Lot 2B, The Landing); the Dance City property (Lot 2A, The Landing); and the City’s property (Lot 1, Yankee Tank View Addition).

The Tennis Center use is considered a Private Recreation Facility in Use Group 7 which is allowed in all zoning districts subject to special conditions in 20-1441 and subject to approval of a Use Permitted Upon Review (20-1608).

I have reviewed the history of the Sport-2-Sport and Dance City approvals and provided a brief summary below.

CUP-03-01-95	County Commission approved Conditional Use Permit for ball fields located in unincorporated County [now platted as Sport-2-Sport Addition, Lot 1] Amended in 1996 for construction of permanent restrooms & CMB sales
UPR-03-03-95	City Commission approved UPR for indoor athletic complex for basketball, soccer & volleyball on Lot 2, The Landing
UPR-03-03-97	Subsequent to ball fields annexation, the City Commission approved UPR for additional parking & batting cages on ball fields site and 825 sf building addition to Sport-2-Sport building [Sport-2-Sport Addition, Lot 1 & The Landing, Lot 2]
UPR-12-15-98	City Commission approved UPR for Dance City, a gymnastics & dance studio on eastern portion of Lot 2, The Landing [now platted as Lot 2A of a Lot Split of Lot 2, The Landing] Approximately 10,000 sf building constructed on south half of Lot 2A.
2006	First Serve Tennis occupies the former indoor Sport-2-Sport building located on Lot 2B, The Landing and is not under common ownership with the ball fields Sport-2-Sport site to the west.

In my opinion, a new UPR is required to permit the expansion of the First Serve Tennis site onto the City property since the City land has never been approved for this UPR use. In other words, the City’s property has never been included in an approved UPR site plan.

The property included within Lot 2A (Dance City) was originally included in the UPR for the indoor Sport-2-Sport facility and subsequently included in the Dance City UPR. In both plans, this portion of the property is shown as undeveloped, open space and has never been contemplated for outdoor recreational activities. Therefore, a revised UPR is required to permit this additional activity in a residential zoning district.

Section 20-1613(g) outlines the process for amendment of a UPR and states: As a complete alternative to the procedures and requirements of this Section and with the written consent of the property owner, the Director of Planning may approve minor modifications and alterations of a Use Permitted upon Review.

Section 20-1428(b)(4) defines Minor Alteration to Existing Development means development on improved real estate that is altered or changed and does not meet the definition of Section 20-1428(b)(3).

Section 20-1428(b)(3) defines Significant Alteration to Existing Development means a development on improved real estate that is altered or changed in such manner that one or more of the following is applicable: (a) The development results in the construction of a building, structure, or addition that increases the gross square footage of the existing development by more than ten percent (10%); provided, that separate incremental developments below the 10% amount shall not be used to avoid the requirements of Sections 20-1428:1435 if in the aggregate the developments over a period of 18 months would meet those requirements; or, (b)The estimated construction costs of the development exceeds ten percent (10%) of the most recent appraised fair market value of the existing property as determined by the County Appraiser, provided, that separate incremental developments below the 10% amount shall not be used to avoid the requirements of Sections 20-1428:1435 if in the aggregate the development over a period of 18 months would meet those requirements; or,(c)The construction or paving of any parking lot or facility which covers ground previously not used as a parking lot or facility, or the construction or paving of any parking lot or facility which does not conform to City pavement standards pursuant to 20-1217; or,(d)The alteration or intensification of any use which increases off-street parking requirements pursuant to Article 12 of this Chapter.

It appears that Mr. Elwell’s proposal to expand the existing indoor facility and add outdoor courts meet the definition of Significant Alteration (a), (b) and (c). Therefore, I have concluded that a revised UPR submission to the Planning Commission and City Commission is required because the proposal expands the land area and activities to be permitted.