ITEM NO

<Draft> Planning Commission Minutes

April 17, 2006

ITEM NO. 12A-12F:

Presentation by Staff Paul Patterson:

On October 7, 2005 and February 16, 2006 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed the Mercato rezonings and deferred action at both meetings. A copy of the October and February Planning Commission minutes are attached for reference. The applicant has now modified the rezoning requests by decreasing their proposed PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District rezoning from 55.9 acres to 45.3 acres and increasing their proposed RO-1A (Residence-Office) District rezoning from 20.39 acres to 31.12 acres.

This staff report has been revised from the February 16, 2006 report to respond to the applicant’s modified requests and to include the zoning conversions which would be enacted through the newly adopted zoning codes effective July 1, 2006.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff is recommending approval of the following rezoning requests and forwarding these 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:

Item 12A [Z-03-05-06] requesting 45.31 acres from A (Agricultural) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District be approved, subject to the following conditions:

1. Approval and filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds Office;

2. Submittal of a Preliminary Development Plan within 12 months;

3. Approval of a Preliminary Development Plan by the City Commission; and

4. CC400 Restrictions per Horizon 2020

a. Maximum total of 184,640 Gross Square Feet of Retail Commercial.

b. No one store shall occupy more than 175,000 gross square feet.

c. The Preliminary Development Plan shall include a single store building that has at least 40,000 gross square feet of commercial space.

d. The sum of the gross square footage for all stores that occupy space between 100,000 gross square feet and 175,000 gross square feet shall not exceed 70 percent of the gross commercial square footage for the corner of the intersection.

Item 12B [Z-03-06-06] requesting 31.12 acres from A (Agricultural) to RO-1A (Residence-Office) District; be approved using the Lesser Change Table as 31.12 acres of RO-2 (Residence-Office) District, subject to: 1. the approval and filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds Office; and 2. CC400 restrictions for the W. 6^th Street/K-10 Nodal Area per Horizon 2020.

Item 12C [Z-01-10-05] requesting 25.82 acres from A (Agricultural) to RS-2 (Single-family Residential) District; be approved as requested, subject to the approval and filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds Office.

Item 12D [Z-01-11-05] requesting 7.63 acres from A (Agricultural) to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District; be approved as requested, subject to the approval and filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds Office.

Item 12E [Z-01-12-05] requesting 12.77 acres from A (Agricultural) to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District; be approved using the Lesser Change Table as 12.77 acres of RM-1 (Multiple-Family) Residential District, subject to the approval and filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds Office.

ZONING SUMMARY (Gross Acres, includes zoning to center of ROW)

	Approved Nodal Plan	Proposed Mercato Plat	Staff Recommendation
Commercial	34 Acres	45.31 acres PCD-2	45.31 acres of PCD-2, subject to an approved Preliminary Development Plan and CC400 Restrictions
Office	20 Acres	31.12 acres RO-1A	31.12 acres of RO-2, using the Lesser Change Table and subject to CC400 Restrictions
Res. Low Density	42 Acres	25.82 acres RS-2	25.82 acres RS-2
Res. Medium Density	26 Acres	7.63 acres RM-D	7.63 Acres of RM-D
Res. High Density	0 Acres	12.77 acres RM-2	12.77 Acres of RM-1 (Res. Medium Density) using the Lesser Change Table
TOTAL	122 Acres	122.65 acres	122.65 acres

NEW DEVELOPMENT CODE CONVERSIONS

The new code would convert the proposed zoning districts to the following districts, as of July 1, 2006. The actual rezonings for the property would not occur until after the recording of the Final Plats and subsequent publication of the Zoning Ordinances for the property.

ITEM 12A. PCD-2 zoning becomes PCD-2 Mercato with a specific Mercato Commercial Development Plan which would require a Preliminary Development Plan to be reviewed with recommendations by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Commission. The Development Plan would need to adhere to the requirements of the CC400, per Horizon 2020. The Final Development Plan would be approved by the Planning Commission, if it is in conformance with the approved Preliminary Development Plan.

ITEM 12B. IF RO-2, then becomes RSO (Single Dwelling Residential-Office District). The primary purpose of the RSO District is to accommodate low to medium intensity administrative and professional offices that are compatible with the character of low and medium residential neighborhoods. The District is also intended to be used as a transitional Zoning District between higher-intensity commercial areas and residential neighborhoods. The District allows detached dwellings, duplexes, attached dwellings and administrative and professional office uses, which may be combined in the same structure (e.g., office on the ground floor or at the front of the building with dwelling units on upper floors or toward the rear of the building). The maximum density requirement would be 15 dwelling units per acre. A site plan would be required, which would be administratively reviewed for approval. Page 4-5 of the new code has retail sales - general as a permitted use within the RSO District; therefore staff is recommending that this rezoning also be contingent upon CC400 restrictions for this area per Horizon 2020.

ITEM 12C. RS-2 becomes RS7 (Single-Dwelling Residential District – 7,000 Square Feet). The primary purpose of the RS Districts is to accommodate single Dwelling Units on individual Lots. The Districts are intended to create, maintain and promote housing opportunities for individual households, although they do permit nonresidential uses that are compatible with residential neighborhoods. Individual building permits would be processed by Neighborhood Resources.

ITEM 12D. RM-D becomes RM12D (Multiple-Dwelling Residential Districts). The primary purpose of the RM districts is to accommodate multi-Dwelling housing. The Districts are intended to create, maintain and promote higher Density housing opportunities in areas with good transportation Access. The net density (excluding right-of-way of public dedicated streets) of the RM12D District is 12 Dwelling Units per acre. Individual building permits would be processed by Neighborhood Resources.

ITEM 12E. If RM-1 then becomes RM12 (Multiple-Dwelling Residential District). The primary purpose of the RM districts is to accommodate multi-Dwelling housing. The Districts are intended to create, maintain and promote higher Density housing opportunities in areas with good transportation Access. The net density (excluding right-of-way of public dedicated streets) of the RM12D District is 12 Dwelling Units per acre. Site plans for the multiple-dwelling units would be administratively reviewed for approval.

Applicant’s Reason for Request:

“Continued demand for growth on the west side of Lawrence suggests development of the subject property to be appropriate at this time. This request will provide necessary services to support development in surrounding areas.”

KEY POINTS

· In October 2005, Annexation [A-01-02-05] was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and will be considered by the City Commission in conjunction with these rezonings and the Preliminary Plat.

· The property is within the Nodal Plan for the intersection of W. 6^th Street and Kansas Highway K-10, approved by the City of Lawrence on November 11, 2003 http://www.lawrenceplanning.org/documents/nodalplan6thslt.pdf .

· The Preliminary Plat has two phases. The first phase would be able to be served by the existing wastewater pump station. The development of the second phase would need to be delayed until additional wastewater capacity is developed in accordance with a proposed 2006 update to the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan.

· Rezonings are being submitted in conjunction with the Mercato Preliminary Plat and annexation of the northwest portion of the property.

· George Williams Way does not currently exist on the north side of W. 6^th Street.

· Development of the property will require both on-site and off-site dedications and installation of George Williams Way from 6^th Street to the northern property boundary and Overland Drive through the development and then turning to the northern property boundary.

· The applicant provided an updated Traffic Impact Study; and a proposed phasing of the development based upon the availability of wastewater capacity (transmission and processing of wastewater).

GOLDEN FACTORS TO CONSIDER

ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY

· The properties nearby are currently zoned A (Agriculture) and are in agricultural use or undeveloped.

APPROPRIATENESS OF REQUESTED ZONING

· This area was annexed into the City in 2001 (excluding the northwest 17.2 acre portion located outside of the Lawrence City limits [A-01-02-05]), and is anticipated to gradually be developed over the next 5-10 years.

CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

· The proposal will need to conform to the approved Nodal Plan for the intersection of W. 6^th Street and K-10 Highway.

· The proposal will need to conform to the approved Transportation 2025 Plan.

· The proposed transition of land uses conforms to land use recommendations found in Horizon 2020.

ASSOCIATED CASES/OTHER ACTION REQUIRED

· Annexation decision by the City Commission [A-01-02-05]

· Zoning decision by the City Commission [Z-03-(05,06)-06] and [Z-01-(10,11,12)-05]

· Adoption of Zoning Ordinances by the City Commission and Ordinance publications.

· Preliminary [PP-01-02-06] and Final Plat approvals.

· Preliminary and Final Development Plan approvals prior to development of property zoned Planned Commercial Development.

· Final Plat easements and dedications of road rights-of-way would need to be accepted by the City Commission.

· Approved Site Plans would be required for property zoned Residence-Office and Multiple Family Residential.

· Approval of public infrastructure plans.

· Building permit(s) would need to be obtained from Neighborhood Resources.

PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING

Public comments are contained within the attached minutes from the September/October 2005 and February 2006 Planning Commission meetings.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Current Zoning and Land Use:

A (Agricultural) District; One existing single-family house to be removed, agriculture use and undeveloped land.

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

North – A (Agricultural) District; Agriculture uses and undeveloped land.

West – A (Agricultural) District; Kansas Department of Transportation Frontage Road and K-10 Highway.

East – A (Agricultural) and Pending RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) and Pending RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) Districts; Proposed extension of George Williams Way Arterial, across conditionally approved Single-Family and Multiple-Family portion of Oregon Trail Preliminary Plat and undeveloped 5.4 acre parcel along W. 6^th Street.

South – W. 6^th Street/U.S. Highway 40; Across W. 6^th Street proposed PCD-2 Northgate Commercial Development (AKA Diamondhead).

I. ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY

Staff Finding. Most of the properties nearby are currently zoned A (Agriculture) with agriculture uses and undeveloped land. Conditionally approved RS-2 and RM-1 zoned Oregon Trail Subdivision is located to the east across proposed extension of George Williams Way. Proposed Northgate Planned Commercial Development is located to the south across W. 6^th Street.

II. CHARACTER OF THE AREA

The requested 122.65 acre Mercato development is located on two parcels at the northeast intersection of W. 6^th Street (Highway 40) and K-10 Highway. The area is contained within the study area for the Nodal Plan for W.6^th Street and K-10 Highway, that was approved by the City of Lawrence on November 11, 2003.

The entire development site is approximately 1,700 to 2,300 feet wide (east to west) by approximately 2,500 feet deep (north to south). The high point of the site is along W. 6^th Street. The property along W. 6^th Street is nearly 90 feet higher than the northern property line and has varying slopes (overall average slope of less than 4% downwards to the north). A portion of the land has previously been used for agriculture crop production and the remainder of the site has been cleared of trees in anticipation of future development. An existing house is proposed to be removed as part of the development.

The 17.52 acre northwest portion of the proposed development (contained in a separate parcel) is currently located outside of the Lawrence City Limits. An annexation request [A-01-02-05] was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in October of 2005. The applicant has consented to allowing the annexation request to be deferred to be heard by the City Commission in conjunction with these rezoning requests and the Preliminary Plat for Mercato [PP-01-02-06].

In response to KDOT planned improvements to W. 6^th Street/Highway 40, the northwest portion of the City of Lawrence was annexed into the City in 2001. This annexed area was not required to be rezoned to a City zoning category, but was allowed to retain the County A (Agriculture) District designation. Property owners were permitted to initiate rezoning on their own time schedule, based upon their specific proposed projects.

The eastern property line is located at the proposed extension of George Williams Way (minor arterial shown in Transportation 2025), a 120’ right-of-way being recommended by the City Engineer (60’ from each side). To the east of George Williams Way, is the conditionally approved Oregon Trail Preliminary Plat and a vacant 5.4 acre parcel located along W. 6^th Street. Farther to the east along W. 6^th Street is St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church and an undeveloped site for a future City water tower.

To the north of the property are large unplatted parcels of land with County A (Agricultural) District zoning that are located outside of the Lawrence City Limits and just outside of the boundary of Unified School District 497 (Lawrence).

The western property line is along the eastern frontage road of the K-10 Highway. Across K-10 Highway are large parcels with the County A (Agricultural) District and one 7 acre County B-1 (Neighborhood Business) District parcel.

To the south is W. 6^th Street (Highway 40). W. 6^th Street is being expanded to 2 lanes in each direction with turning lanes at the ¼ mile intersections. Improvements to W. 6^th Street are scheduled to be completed by summer of 2006. Across W. 6^th Street is the proposed Northgate Commercial Development (Preliminary Development Plan [PDP-09-08-05] which the Planning Commission recommended for approval at their January 2006 meeting, subject to conditions and the City Commission conditionally approved in February of 2006) and the recently constructed George Williams Way (south of W. 6^th Street).

Staff Finding - The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of K-10 Highway and W.6^th Street (U.S. Highway 40). It is located within an area which by annexation agreement, was to retain its Douglas County zoning (A Agricultural) until development was proposed. Properties to the north, west and south are largely undeveloped at this time. Properties to the east contain a conditionally approved Oregon Trail Preliminary Plat, an existing church, a vacant parcel, and a future city water tower site.

The proposed Mercato development site is within the Nodal Plan for W.6^th Street and K-10 Highway that was approved by the City of Lawrence on November 11, 2003.

III. SUITABILITY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED

Applicant’s Response: “Although generally suitable for the current use restriction in the short term, when studied in the context of associated rezoning request, adjacent development, as well as US Highway 40 improvements, the proposed zoning will be most suitable.”

The subject property was annexed into the City in 2001 to facilitate the City’s financing of the W.6^th Street/U.S. Highway 40 improvement project and retained the County zoning designation of A (Agricultural) District. The Code states that territory to be annexed into the City will retain its County zoning designation, but that a rezoning request shall be initiated by the property owner or the city. A rezoning was not requested, and the property has retained the County zoning designation. The A (Agricultural) District is no longer appropriate development of land incorporated into Lawrence. The property is not suitable for prolonged agricultural use, due to pressures for new development of this area.

For the northeast corner of the W.6^th Street/K-10 Highway intersection, the Nodal Plan identified approximately 34 acres of commercial, 20 acres of Office, 26 acres of Medium Density Residential, and 42 acres of Low Density Residential.

Access/Public Improvements

This property is unplatted. The owners have submitted the Mercato Preliminary Plat [PP-01-01-06] in conjunction with these rezoning requests. The plat will need to address access, easements, rights-of-way dedications and public improvements for the property.

ITEM NO. 12A: A TO PCD-2; 45.31 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)

Z-03-05-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 45.31 acres from A (Agriculture) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, Tanglewood, LC, Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbourt EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record.

Staff presentation of Item 12A:

The proposed Planned Commercial Development zoning could provide for an appropriate land use. In staff’s opinion, the property may be suitable for the proposed PCD-2 zoning category. PCD-2 zoning allows for a number of different types of land uses, which could include the following:

· Residential dwelling units (attached, detached, or mixed)

· The permitted maximum dwelling unit density per net residential acre shall not exceed 35 dwelling units.

· Any use permitted in Use Group 7 – Community Facilities – Public Utilities.

· Use Group 8 – Temporary Uses

· Use Group 9 – Professional Offices

· Use Group 9A – Limited Services

· Use Group 11 – Inner Neighborhood Commercial Uses

· Use Group 12 – Retail Stores – Personal services

· Use Group 13 – Automotive Services; Retail Sales; Other

· Use Group 14 – Retail-Wholesale Sales and Services

· Use Group 15 – Amusement, Recreational and Cultural Facilities

A minimum of 20% of the planned commercial development area is required to be common open space for open air and recreation uses.

The request is for 45.31 gross acres of PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District.

The Nodal Plan for the Intersection of W. 6^th Street and K-10 Highway identified approximately 34 acres of commercial zoning, 20 acres of office zoning, 26 acres of medium density residential zoning, and 42 acres of low density residential zoning, at the northeast corner of the intersection.

Per Chapter 6 of Horizon 2020, Community Center Under 400,000 restrictions would include the following limitations which would need to be applied to this development:

1. Maximum total of 184,640 Gross Square Feet of Retail Commercial (400,000 x .95 at any two corners of the node <southeast and northeast> less the Northgate Preliminary Development Plan’s retail commercial 195,360 = 184,640 maximum allowed Gross Square Feet of Retail Commercial for Mercato).

2. No one store shall occupy more than 175,000 gross square feet.

3. The Preliminary Development Plan shall include a single store building that has at least 40,000 gross square feet of commercial space.

4. The sum of the gross square footage for all stores that occupy space between 100,000 gross square feet and 175,000 gross square feet shall not exceed 70 percent of the gross commercial square footage for the corner of the intersection.

STAFF FINDINGS Item 12A: A to PCD-2

The property may no longer be suitable for the agricultural uses to which it has been restricted. City zoning designations are appropriate as the land has been annexed and in the City since 2001. The PCD zoning designations, based on the W. 6^th Street/K-10 Nodal Plan, Northwest Area Plan and Horizon 2020 is appropriate on this corner of the W. 6^th Street/K-10 intersection, however, the number of acres are not consistent with the referenced documents. The request exceeds the general area (approximately 34 acres of commercial) identified in the nodal plan for this corner of the intersection.

A Preliminary Development Plan approved by both the Planning Commission and City Commission, and a Final Development Plan which conforms to the approved Preliminary Development Plan is required prior to development of the PCD-2 area. This Development Plan for the commercial component of Mercato would include restrictions as indicated for a Community Center under 400,000 square feet (Chapter 6, pages 7 and 8 of Horizon 2020) and the Nodal Plan for this intersection (Nodal Plan for the Intersection of W. 6^th Street and K-10 Highway). Based upon the amount of acreage requested for this PCD-2 area, the Mercato Development Plan may need to include mixed-uses; which could include a mixture of commercial retail, office, bank, and residential. Residential units are allowed uses within a Planned Commercial Development, as approved by the Planning Commission and City Commission. The maximum density of residential within a PCD-2 is 35 dwelling units/net acre. Any residential component may be further restricted based upon traffic, utilities, or other concerns which would be identified at the time of Preliminary Development Plan review.

ITEM NO. 12B: A TO RO-1A; 31.12 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)

Z-03-06-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 31.12 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RO-1A (Residence-Office) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, Tanglewood, LC, Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbourt EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record.

Staff presentation for Item 12B:

The RO-1A zoning district allows for the following types of land use:

· Use Group 1. Agricultural – Animal Husbandry

· Use Group 2. Agricultural - Field Crops

· Use Group 3. Residential Single-family Detached

· Use Group 3A. Residential – Duplex

· Use Group 4. Residential – Multiple-family. Medium and high-density multi-family residences

· Use Group 6. Residential – Mobile Home Park

· Use Group 7. Community Facilities - Public Utilities

· Use Group 8. Temporary Uses

· Use Group 9. Professional Offices

The maximum density of RO-1A is 21.78 dwelling units per acre. While RO zoning may be appropriate next to a proposed commercial center, Horizon 2020 defines 16-21 dwelling units per acre as High-Density Residential Development. Medium-Density Residential is identified as 7 to 15 dwelling units per acre. The Northwest Area Plan also covers this area. It should also be referenced as should the recommendation in it to transition from greater to lesser density from south to north.

The request is for 31.12 gross acres of RO-1A Zoning District. The Nodal Plan for the Intersection of W. 6^th Street and K-10 Highway identified approximately 20 acres of office zoning at the northeast corner of the intersection. Because of the unanticipated high residential density associated with RO-1A, staff finds that RO-2 (Residence-Office) District would be a more suitable office zoning and would allow for desired mixed-use office/residential as contained in the new zoning code for RSO (Single Dwelling Residence) District.

STAFF FINDINGS Item 12B: A to RO-1A

The property may no longer be suitable for the agricultural uses to which it has been restricted. City zoning designations are appropriate as the land has been annexed and in the city since 2001. The requested residential office/zoning is consistent with the recommendation for office use in the Nodal Plan, however, the potential residential density of RO-1A is inconsistent with Horizon 2020 and the Northwest Area Plan recommendations for medium density which is from 7 – 15 dwelling units/acre. A modification using the Lesser Change Table to 31.12 acres of RO-2 (Residence-Office) District would be consistent with the Nodal Plan for this area and would convert to RSO (Single Dwelling Office) District in the new code.

ITEM NO. 12C: A TO RS-2; 25.82 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)

Z-01-10-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 25.82 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, Tanglewood, LC, Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbourt EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the February Planning Commission meeting

Staff presentation for Item 12C:

The RS-2 (Single-family Residential) zoning district allows for the following types of land use:

· Use Group 1. Agricultural – Animal Husbandry

· Use Group 2. Agricultural - Field Crops

· Use Group 3. Residential Single-family Detached

· Use Group 6. Residential – Mobile Home Park

· Use Group 7. Community Facilities - Public Utilities

· Use Group 8. Temporary Uses

The maximum density of RS-2 is 6.22 Dwelling Units per Acre.

The request is for 25.82 Gross Acres of RS-2 Single Family Residential Zoning. The Nodal Plan for the Intersection of W. 6^th Street and K-10 Highway identified approximately 42 gross acres of low density residential at the northeast corner of the intersection. The RS-2 Zoning Request is consistent with both the Nodal Plan and the Northwest Area Plan. Additional RS-2 zoning would also be allowed.

STAFF FINDINGS Item 12C: A to RS-2

ITEM NO. 12D: A TO RM-D; 7.63 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)

Z-01-11-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 7.63 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, Tanglewood, LC, Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbourt EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the February Planning Commission meeting.

Staff presentation for Item 12D:

The property must be zoned to a City zoning category. In staff’s opinion, the property may be suitable in the future for a mixture of Single-Family and Duplex-Residential zoning. The RM-D (Duplex-Residential) zoning district allows for duplexes. The maximum density of RM-D is 12.44 Dwelling Units per Acre. This is defined as medium density residential (7-15 dwelling units per acre) in Horizon 2020.

The request is for 7.63 Gross Acres of RM-D (Duplex Residential) Zoning. The Nodal Plan for the Intersection of W. 6^th Street and K-10 Highway identified approximately 26 gross acres of medium density residential at the northeast corner of the intersection. The density and location of the RM-D (Duplex-Residential) zoning is consistent with the Nodal Plan and the Northwest Area Plan.

STAFF FINDINGS Item 12D: A to RM-D

ITEM NO. 12E: A TO RM-2; 12.77 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)

Z-01-12-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 12.77 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbour EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the February Planning Commission meeting.

Staff presentation for Item 12E:

The RM (Multiple-Family-Residential) zoning district allows for:

· Use Group 1. Agricultural – Animal Husbandry

· Use Group 2. Agricultural - Field Crops

· Use Group 3. Residential Single-family Detached

· Use Group 3A. Residential-Duplex

· Use Group 4. Residential - Multi-Family

· Use Group 6. Residential – Mobile Home Park

· Use Group 7. Community Facilities - Public Utilities

· Use Group 8. Temporary Uses

The maximum density of RM-2 is 21.78 Dwelling Units per Acre. While RM-2 zoning may be appropriate next to a proposed commercial center, Horizon 2020 defines 16-21 dwelling units per acre as High-Density Residential Development. Medium-Density Residential is identified as 7 to 15 dwelling units per acre.

The maximum density of RM-1 is 12.45 Dwelling Units per Acre.

The request is for 12.77 Gross Acres of RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zoning. The Nodal Plan for the Intersection of W. 6^th Street and K-10 Highway identified approximately 26 gross acres of medium density residential and no high density residential at the northeast corner of the intersection. The RM-2 Zoning is not consistent with Horizon 2020, the Northwest Area Plan or the Nodal Plan recommendations.

STAFF FINDINGS Item 12E: A to RM-2

The property may no longer be suitable for the agricultural uses to which it has been restricted. City zoning designations are appropriate as the land has been annexed and in the City since 2001. The requested residential zoning is not consistent with the Nodal Plan for residential recommendations for either low density residential or for medium density residential (7 – 15 dwelling units/acre) residential uses for this area. RM-1 which has a maximum density of 12.45 Dwelling Units per Acre would be consistent with the Nodal Plan.

ITEM NO. 12F: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MERCATO; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)

PP-01-02-06: Revised Preliminary Plat for Mercato. This proposed residential and commercial development contains approximately 122.65 acres. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, L.C., Oread, L.C., Tanglewood, L.C., Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, L.C., and Safe Harbour EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the February Planning Commission meeting.

APPLICANTS PRESENTATION

JANE ELDREDGE: Representing Mercato project. The commercial acreage has been reduced by 20 percent by request of Commissioner Haase. Staff is recommending approval of the commercial. There are no acres in the Nodal Plan, northwest area plan, or in the transportation 2025 plan….these are all blob plans. They are read in conjunction with the narrative. The only time acre comes up in the Nodal Plan is when it says the whole Nodal Plan is 640 acres. We find acres in chapter 6-commercial chapter of the Horizon 2020-the only time acreage is mentioned under the criteria for community commercial center is setting a minimum number of acres, which is 20 acres for commercial development. There is no maximum for acres. We urge you to adopt staff’s recommendation with the exception of the 12 month. That was brand new, and they had just heard it for the first time on Thursday. We are bringing forward tonight a preliminary plat. This zoning request will not be effective until you see a preliminary development plan. The preliminary development plan cannot be meaningfully prepared until we talk to the tenants about what they would need. These owners have every incentive to proceed with as rapidly as possible; holding this much land in an unproductive state is not in their self-interest. We ask to eliminate condition number 2, and we have agreed to all the other conditions. You have told us that there are 184,000 square feet for commercial use and we have accepted that. There will be no other commercial retail zoning there until this planning commission says that should happen. We agree with the recommendations of staff for 12C and 12D. The last two are more problematic and they refer to the two suggestions with the lesser change table. It refers to RM-2 area and RO-1 area. The other plans are active, so these are all generalized plans, and your job is to identify the guiding principles in all three of these plans that deal with this corner. The definition for medium density residential in our existing code is RM-2, which is what we asked for. This can be found in 20-603. 20-606 defines the RO zoning and RO-1A defined as medium density. The residential units per acre in RO-1A and RM-2 are the same, 21 units per acre. That density is appropriate in the Northgate project to the south. It’s all medium density and that is what the nodal plan calls for and it is defined in our existing code. The reason not to go to an RO-1 or RO-2 here, is because the northwest area plan requires uses to be more intense along 6^th street and the South Lawrence Trafficway. This doesn’t make since to reduce this to a lower unit, which under new development code will not allow a multiple family. Under the new code the RSO or CO would allow commercial. If you stick to the RO-1A that we have requested that would go to an RMO and there is no commercial allowed. There is concern from this commission of how much commercial retail on this corner. We can insure that by using the request we have made. The south side has been approved and we believe it appropriate for the north side to be approved as well.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: Is there a time frame that the applicant would be comfortable with?

JANE ELDREDGE: There is not one I can give at this point, because without a zoning designation there has not been any discussion between applicants and perspective tenants. It is not required under current code and it has not been used in any other situations, and I do not believe that it needs to be done here.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: Would 3 or 4 years be reasonable? While you confer, I have another question to resolve notions that I heard. Conversion of RO-1A, I thought I heard staff say that under new code, that would convert to a zoning category that would allow for commercial development, and I know I heard Jane say that is not the case. Is that a problem or not?

STAFF PATTERSON: Staff recommendation was for O1 office district under the current code, which converts under the new code to CO (Office Commercial).

COMMISSIONER HAASE: Does RO-1A under the new code convert to something that permits retail commercial?

MS. STAGSDILL: No, our previous recommendation was to use the lesser change to go to O-1, O-1 would become CO (Office Commercial) which would allow for commercial uses, which is why we have changed our recommendation to RO-2 which converts to RSO.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: What’s the problem with RO-1A?

MS. STAGSDILL: Our concern was the density.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Could staff clarify the density on each of the different RO districts that we have discussed and what is allowed in them in addition to residential. I have that RO-1A allows for 21 dwelling units per acre, and RO-2 allows for 12 dwelling units per acre. Is that correct?

STAFF PATTERSON: RO-1 allows for 43 dwelling units per acre as the maximum density. Under RO-1A, the maximum density allowed is 21 dwelling units per acre. Under RO-1B and RO-2 it allows for a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Does RO-1A allow for commercial development?

JANE ELDREDGE: Answer Commissioner Haase’s question, we could agree to a five year outside maximum.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: Did staff compute a floor area ratio to see how this acreage benchmarks against industry standards for the actual square footage as it relates to acreage?

STAFF PATTERSON: No we did not, we recommended the CC 400,000 square foot restrictions upon the zoning for the commercial PCD-2 portions and identified what those restrictions would be per Horizon 2020’s Commercial Chapter 6 that would pertain to the commercial component.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: There are industry standards as how big a square footage can be accommodated by a given acreage in a typical retail environment…do we have that information?

JANE ELDREDGE: This request is not just for retail, but a possibility for a number of other uses.

COMMISSIONER HARRIS: How does the recommendation of staff compare to the Nodal Plan in the number of residential units you are proposing?

STAFF PATTERSON: There is a summary of the breakout of the different zoning districts in the preliminary plat staff report, item 12F on the second page of the report.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Can you give us what the dwelling units per acre are in RS-2, as low density.

STAFF PATTERSON: The dwelling units for low density is 6 dwelling units or less per acre.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Is that what RS-2 is?

STAFF PATTERSON: RS-2 is around 6 dwelling units per acre.

MS. STAGSDILL: Most RS-2 developments net 3-4 dwelling units when you take away for the right-of-way.

COMMISSIONER JENNINGS: 40 acres of commercial would only be about 11 percent for retail square feet.

COMMISSIONER ERMELING: If 5 years is your maximum expectation for how long you need before you can move on to the next part of development…what is you minimum?

JANE ELDREDGE: The best estimate would be 4 years.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: If we required having a zoning for the plan unit development, and not get the zoning itself until we saw the plan then at that point we could write some conditions into the zoning and not just into the plan. Those conditions could include building heights, building design elements. What else could we write into the zoning if we had the plan at the same time we had the zoning request?

MS. STOGSDILL: In the past rezoning ordinance of PCD have listed specific uses that are permitted, the use group tables with certain uses struck out. That’s been typical.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: If we don’t have the plan when we are doing the zoning, then we don’t have a list of conditions to write in, unless we do some planning ourselves. The result is that if we adapt a planned unit zone without seeing the plan, then when the plan comes in we approve it, but it often goes through changes. So it wouldn’t have the same kind of permanency as it does putting it into the zoning. Is that true statement?

MS. STOGSDILL: Most of the time when someone is proposing a specific change, then they require additional public hearing to revise the preliminary development plan. The one piece you don’t have is the ability for neighbors to protest.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: Question for the sewer expert….half of the project is phase one and phase two is the rest, and how far out is phase two?

PHIL STRUBLE: There are no phase lines. City Commission on Tuesday night removed all phase lines. We are going to increase capacity of that pump station to its maximum ability, which would serve this development, and more today once it’s done.

PUBLIC COMMENT

No member of the public came forward to comment on these items.

TIM HERNDON: There are a couple of conditions that need to be addressed. There are a couple of changes to the preliminary plat that we want to make. Condition 3A reads: no building permits will be issued until the completion of either George Williams Way or Overland Drive to the subdivision. We would like it to read: No occupancy permits will be issued until the completion of either George Williams Way or Overland Drive to the subdivision. Obviously we don’t intend to open businesses or occupy residences until the roadways are finished but we would like to have permission to begin some construction. Item 3C reads: dedication of George Williams Way right-of-way to be unencumbered from prior placement of electric transmission lines. We would like that condition removed. Along George Williams Way there are some high voltage Westar lines that will need to be removed prior to the construction of George Williams Way. This condition could produce a catch-22, because sometimes in order to for a benefit district for the creation of a street, the right-of-way has to be dedicated. But if you can’t dedicate it until the power lines are removed we cause a chicken and egg situation that could be a beaurocratic mess and cause delays. Condition 4 requires that the right-of- way be approved by the director of legal services whether that condition is there or not. Condition 6 that refers to a note that was placed on the previous preliminary plat, that refers to the phasing. We want the note to be removed along with the phase lines be removed.

STAFF PATTERSON: Item number 3A…currently George Williams Way and Overland Drive do not connect to the subdivision. There are outside improvements that would have to be made to get to the subdivision of these roads. The fire department requires two things…fire hydrants with water pressure to be available and all weather access to that property. The other part of this was the concern with using that frontage road, which is not constructed to large truck standards. There would be a concern with construction trucks using it. Item 3C….public works identified that the existing electronic lines are within the requested 120 feet right away and those lines would need to be removed. Last item…..staff has not had direction on the overall wastewater issue disseminated down yet from the City Commission’s meeting of last Tuesday. We have had some additional assistance on this and understand that the phasing for sewer should not be a requirement. We would be able to remove condition number 6.

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: Condition number 2 is basically protecting the applicant against fire, and you are aware of this and despite that you would still like it to be removed?

TIM HERNDON: Yes we would. Building inspection is not going to issue the permitting until sufficient conditions exist that generally resemble what Mr. Patterson described. It is also quite frequent that certain construction evolution takes place while roadways are being constructed around them. A lot of roadways are unfinished until a significant build-out occurs to prevent heavy equipment damaging a brand new street.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: What was staff’s answer on the second one?

STAFF PATTERSON: It is ok to strike Item 12C, on the prior placement of electric transmission lines.

MS. STOGSDILL: We have struggled with these building permits and occupancy permit issues, but it would be consistent with what the City Commission did for Monterey Bluffs. Originally they were restricted to building permits until Monterey Way north of Peterson was constructed and the developers did go back the City Commission and ask that that be changed to occupancy permits and that was approved.

Motion to extend the meeting until 10:30 by Commissioner Ermeling. Seconded by Harris (no objections).

MS. STOGSDILL: Staff is in a little bit of a dilemma because we made those recommendation for density based on Horizon 2020 defines medium density as 7-15 dwelling units per acre and high density as 16-21, and our existing code shows that 21 dwelling units per acre is medium because of what our code allows, so we made our recommendation as to what Horizon 2020 says. Northgate/Diamondhead was approved with these same requested zonings, so there is some kind of a disconnect here.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: There is concern with multifamily right next to a single family and there is no buffering so you can end up with tall building right next to short buildings and you might have guys looking in to the small building windows from the tall buildings. We don’t have anything in our current code to control that. The new code has stronger language with buffering that out. If we are thinking in terms of the current code there is a good argument why we shouldn’t be juxtaposing those two zones. Could staff comment on that problem?

MS. STOGSDILL: There is a disconnect. The new code does set in place buffer yards, which will provide more transition and development standards, which talk about balcony placement when you are adjacent to a single family. Time will only tell if those are adequate.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: We should consider the current code when making our decision?

MS. STOGSDILL: No rush to develop the RM-2 or RO-1A property when there has been discussion that it might be 5 years out before commercial property is ready to be submitted.

COMMISSIONER ERMELING: There is concern about not being able to utilize new standards of the development code that might help us in this particular development and certainly in the design codes that could come forward in our commercial area.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: They will be competing with the Diamondhead property to the south. Maybe competition of design will help both projects.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: If we pass a PCD zoning now before the new code is in effect, what rules will actually apply to the plan when it comes in. The current rules or the new rules?

MS. STOGSDILL: This project is in transition so the applicant can elect to submit under the current regulations or the new regulations.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: I don’t think I can vote for a PCD without a plan that goes with it.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: If they have that option of applying old rules or new rules can we put a stipulations saying that they have to abide by commercial design standards?

MS. STOGSDILL: You could make that recommendation.

COMMISSIONER JENNINGS: They have to come in under the old code or the new code not a combination of the two?

MS. STOGSDILL: Yes.

COMMISSIONER ERMELING: Should it be more of a PRD? If it is under the old code systems, there is room for design consideration…does anyone have feelings about that?

In the development of the south side of 6th, we asked them to abide by the proposed commercial design standards…that would be appropriate in this setting also?

MS. STOGSDILL: You could make that recommendation to the City Commission that they would make that part of the PCD zoning.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Lisa asked about the number of units per acre, if you use the Nodal Plan suggestion of number of acres, half would be under residential which would be about 60 acres and the majority of that should be low density and the rest should be medium density. 60 acres in the low density alone would be around 180-240. If a portion of that would be medium density it would up it some. The current proposal is about 45 acres in residential with the total of 255 units in that 45 acres.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: Is that jibing with what you were thinking.

TIM HERNDON: I just heard a calculation of the bear minimum lowest density development we could do outside of a rural subdivision. With the mix of housing types, 3-4 acres is what you get, but the maximum density that is allowed by Horizon 2020 is 6 dwelling units per acre and a developer will see to it that 6 units will be used and not the bear minimum of 3-4. I would suggest that you use the 6 units in you calculating then the 3-4 units.

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: There are two main areas we need to look at, the staff recommendation of changing from RO-1A to RO-2 and keeping the acres the same, and going from RM-2 to RM-1. We also need to look at the three changes that are made on the preliminary plat.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Right now we are looking at 75 acres being put into use as residential and commercial, and we don’t know what the PCD would allow for. We don’t have a system that works to see the zoning before we see plans.

COMMISSIONER JENNINGS: If they said that they would live with the maximum of 184,000 of gross commercial retail square feet, I don’t see that the acreage on the ground is as important to what they can build up. How can they bring a plan in without knowing who their tenants are?

COMMISSIONER KREBS: What are the plans for the remaining 40 acres.

JANE ELDREDGE: The Nodal Plan is 640 acres which means 160 in the north east corner, so if you are looking at it in the gross allocations of acreages, so half of it would be used for commercial which would be 80 not 60. The request is within the desired nodal plan. We want to bring you the development plan, and no zoning is done until you and the City Commission have approved a preliminary development plan.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: The Northgate is approximately 200 thousand square feet and the one above it is 25 percent bigger, they both have design issues with slope so it’s not a huge number like you may think it is. (directed to Commissioner Krebs)

Motion by Commissioner Eichhorn to approve item 12A and change the second condition to 60 months. Seconded by Lawson.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: In the new code there is a limit to how soon you bring in the plan?

MS. STOGSDILL: You bring the plan in with the zoning.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: 60 months is way too long. If they need to they can come in and get an extension.

Motion to amend the 60 months to 18 month by Commissioner Burress. Seconded by Krebs.

COMMISSIONER JENNINGS: The commercial is going to be out there too quick, and making them accelerate will just make it go even faster.

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: Why is the shorter time needed? (directed to Commissioner Burress)

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Because conditions change, and if in 5 years they come in here and they haven’t done anything, and the world is different and we wish we didn’t give them a PCD at all…we are stuck with that decision. If we are giving a PCD we assume that things are going to move forward.

(Vote on motion by Burress: 2-8 all against except Burress and Krebs)

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Did staff suggest which law this would go under?

MS. STOGSDILL: You could recommend this to the City Commission.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: In a PCD you can condition in a numerous number of ways and that would be one that you could condition, you could write in this PCD a condition that will agree with commercial design standards.

MS. STOGSDILL: You could do that, but you don’t have a plan in front of you.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: You could write it into the zoning.

MS. STOGSDILL: You could do that, but I would recommend that be a separate recommendation though.

(Vote on original motion: 9-1 those against Burress)

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: Next item is Item 12B

COMMISSIONER ERMELING: Is use group number 6 an appropriate use if RO-1A? I do not understand this group number.

JANE ELDREDGE: I would not oppose that being struck.

Motion to approve Item 12B by Commissioner Eichhorn. Seconded by Erickson.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: We need to decide if we want high density or a lower density, and I tend to go towards higher density. Supports RO-1A, so I am going to vote against the motion.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: How would you respond to the argument that we do need higher density but we don’t need it on the far side of the road that’s going to have too much traffic on it?

COMMISSIONER HAASE: We will need to deal with residential traffic generation in the northwest area much better than we have.

COMMISSIONER ERMELING: I support having high density, but I am not sure that we have the mechanisms in place to make that is a coordinated process.

COMMISSIONER JENNINGS: High density is appropriate in that area. Horizon 2020 calls for higher density along trafficways.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: What is staff’s comment on what Commissioner Haase’s recommendation?

MS. STOGSDILL: Horizon 2020 says that you have to have a higher density along your major roadways.

Motion to amend the motion on the floor to change RO-2 to RO-1A. Seconded by Jennings. (Vote 8-2 those against Ermeling and Erickson)

(Vote on original motion 8-2 those against Ermeling and Erickson)

Motion to approve Item 12C by Commissioner Eichhorn. Seconded by Ermeling. (Vote 10-0)

Motion to approve Item 12D by Commissioner Eichhorn. Seconded by Ermeling. (Vote 10-0)

Motion to approve Item 12E by Commissioner Eichhorn. Seconded by Ermeling.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: We have been advised that we should solicit the approval of the applicant, so I would ask to get a reading form the applicant.

JANE ELDREDGE: We do not support it.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: I think that is a legal problem for us. We should move forward with RM-2 or initiate a rezoning on our own.

Motion to amend RM-1 back to RM-2 by Commissioner Lawson. Seconded by Jennings. (Vote 7-3 those against Erickson, Ermeling, Harris)

(Vote for original motion 7-3 those against Erickson, Ermeling, Harris)

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: Final item is Item 12F

Motion to approve 12F with the following conditions: Change item 3A as to what the applicant stated they wanted to be approved, remove 3C, and remove item 6. Seconded by Ermeling.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: To be consistent with the conditions we placed on Northgate, we should add an 8^th conditions that says, phasing and use restrictions of the retail commercial elements of the development will be governed by conclusions drawn from a data set developed within the city of Lawrence planning department. I offer that as a motion to amend the conditions for approval. Seconded by Krebs.

COMMISSIONER LAWSON: What is this amendment meant to do? (directed to Haase)

COMMISSIONER HAASE: This is intended to address the issue of retail impact analysis and I try to craft language that didn’t give any definite form of what that is going to be. The planning commission should be involved in establishing criteria for determining phasing and retail impact of a proposed development, and I am proposing that we attach that as we did to Northgate to this preliminary plat.

JANE ELDEREDGE: I have the minutes from the Northgate issue, and the condition that you are wanted to put here was actually placed on the preliminary developing plan and not on the preliminary plat.

COMMISSIONER JENNINGS: How can they go talk to tenants if they don’t have anything to sell to them? They don’t know what type of use is going to be allowed. It seems that needs to be put into some kind of plan and brought forth.

COMMISSSIONER HAASE: I would yield to those arguments when the preliminary developing plan comes forward that this condition be considered, and by that time we should have better definition of what the mechanism is going to be.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Extract my second

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: We have the original motion out on the floor now.

COMMISSIONER ERMELING: We advised the Northgate group that they had to follow the guidelines of the commercial standards as they stand in draft form, that also needs to be taken up.

(Vote on original motion 10-0)

Motion to make a recommendation that the developing plan for the PCP be required to follow the proposed commercial design guidelines. Seconded by Ermeling. (Vote 8-2 those against Lawson and Jennings)

Meeting recesses until April 19^th, 2006