Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning Department

 

To:

David Corliss, Interim City Manager

From:

City/County Planning Staff

CC:

Sheila Stogsdill, Interim Planning Director

Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager

Date:

July 18, 2006

RE:

8th and Pennsylvania Street Redevelopment Project Conditions of Approval and Planning Commission Requests

 

On Wednesday, March 15, 2006, the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission voted 9-0 to recommend approval of the following items associated with the 8th and Pennsylvania Street Redevelopment Project: PF-01-03-06: Final Plat for 8th and PA Neighborhood Redevelopment, CPA-2005-05: Amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 6, to address mixed-use development in redevelopment areas, and Z-12-80-05: Urban Conservation Overlay District for 8th and Pennsylvania Streets. Z-01-01-06: M-2 and M-3 to C-5; 5.49 acres between 8th and 9th and New Jersey and Delaware Streets was recommended for approval with an 8-1 vote. PP-01-04-06: Preliminary Plat for 8th and PA Neighborhood Redevelopment was approved by the Planning Commission with a 9-0 vote.

 

The following is a list of revised conditions of approval which were recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Commission for the Design Guidelines associated with the 8th and Penn. Urban Conservation Overlay District. [Note: The items highlighted in yellow were revisions recommended by the Planning Commission to the original conditions. The item highlighted in grey is an additional condition recommended by staff after the Planning Commission meeting.]:

 

Lot Area and Yard Regulations

1.      The “Lot Area and Yard Regulations” table on page 12 should be revised to show a comparison of the table on page 6-2 of the proposed Land Development Code with the requirements of the Design Guidelines.

2.      16-foot lot width minimum should be clarified. (page 12)

3.      A minimum lot area per lot of 1,872 square feet may need to be added if the justification for a 16-foot lot width minimum is to allow for individual sale of rowhouses. (page 12)

4.      A minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 1,360 square feet per unit should be added. (page 12)

5.      No setbacks, but language should be included which states that, during the site plan review process, City planning staff may deem setbacks necessary to mitigate impacts. (page 12)

6.      No lot depth, as Lot 1, Block B exceeds the proposed 120-foot lot depth maximum by 16 feet. (page 12)

 

 

Landscaping

7.      Minimum 8-foot greenspace setback for parking lots from lot lines. (pages 12 and 13)

8.      The number of required street trees should comply with the minimum number required per City standards. (page 57)

9.      The preferred street tree list should be included in the document as an appendix.

10.  Modify the tree well section to meet current city standards. (page 58)

Parking Requirements

11.  *The following parking requirements should be utilized: (page 13)

a.      1 space per 250 square feet for food-related uses or 1 space per each 1.5 employees, whichever results in the greater number of required spaces.

b.      1 space per 500 square feet for other non-residential uses or 1 space per each 1.5 employees, whichever results in the greater number of required spaces.

c.      For residential units with 2 bedrooms or more, 2 spaces per unit.

d.      For residential units with less than 2 bedrooms, 1 on or off-street space per residential unit.

e.      Accessible spaces will be provided in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.

12.  Estimates of square footage of non-residential uses should be included for the purposes of estimating the number of parking spaces need for commercial/office uses.

Lighting

13.   A note should be included stating: “In order to limit lighting impacts on adjacent residential property owners, low bollard lighting will be utilized in parking areas adjacent to residential properties. Standard pole parking lot lighting will not be utilized in these areas.” (pages 13, 18, 64, 68, and 73)

14.  A note should be added stating that all external lighting will be fully-shielded, include non-reflective, non-swivel heads mounted at a 45-degree angle, and be confined to net acreage.

Screening

15.  Screening for ground and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be in accordance with City standards (landscaping or architectural treatment compatible with building architecture). (page 46)

16.  Additional landscape screening may be required by City staff if deemed necessary to lessen impact of parking, lighting, or noise on neighboring residential properties.

Sidewalk Width

17.  Minimum 5-foot sidewalk width for all public sidewalks. (page 56)

Development Review Process

18.  A section should be included which outlines the development review process for redevelopment/development of lots within the Urban Conservation Overlay District. Site plan applications and, when applicable, replat and/or rezone applications, which are in accordance with City standards applicable at the time, are required for redevelopment or development within the UCO District. Site plans will undergo Historic Resources Commission review in addition to the standard site plan review.

Draft Land Development Code

19.  Regarding the cited Section numbers for the City’s existing Zoning Regulations, a note should be included next to each Section number stating: “or subsequent applicable City standards”, as the stated Section numbers will not be applicable with Zoning Regulations other than those in use today.

Land Use Allocation

20. As the Design Guidelines include the provision that retail uses should be limited to a maximum of 25% of the net floor area for the UCO District, the guidelines should include a map/table outlining estimates of retail square footages and projected desired percentage of retail uses within the UCO District. This information is needed to track the percentage of utilized and available retail space within the development.

 

*Staff was directed by the Planning Commission to develop a document refining the project’s parking requirements utilizing shared parking calculations in the SmartCode. Staff has worked with the applicant to develop a comparison of parking requirements proposed by Planning Staff, the developer, and the SmartCode. The attached parking calculation document demonstrates that the developer’s proposed parking calculations result in the fewest number of required parking spaces, while staff’s proposal results in the most required parking spaces. Staff supports its original parking requirement proposal, which is the above-referenced condition #11. However, the City Commission should make a final determination on which parking calculation should be included in the Design Guidelines.

 

Staff was also directed by the Planning Commission to research a method by which to limit certain noxious uses from the C-5 zoning district prior to the City Commission meeting. As the City’s recently adopted Land Development Code includes a provision for the City Commission to approve rezoning applications with conditions, noxious uses can be limited via this method.

 

Project Update

Since the March 15, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, three meetings have occurred to address concerns of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association. The first meeting included City staff, neighborhood representatives, and City Commissioners David Schauner and Boog Highberger; the second meeting included City staff, the project developer, and Commissioners Schauner and Highberger; and the third meeting included City staff, neighborhood representatives, the project developer, and Commissioners Schauner and Highberger. Issues such as traffic, parking, density, restriction of noxious uses, affordable housing, height of buildings, and greenspace were discussed at the meetings. Regarding density, the developer has indicated intent to include 54 residential units on the west side of Pennsylvania Street as originally proposed, but with 10-20% permanently affordable units (see attached letter from Roger N. Harris).