PC minutes 3/15/2006

ITEM NO. 11A:      ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT; BETWEEN 8TH & 9TH STREETS AND NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE STREETS  (LBZ)

 

Z-12-80-05:  Establishment of a Zoning Overlay District for the 8th and Penn Neighborhood Redevelopment Zone.  The property is generally described as being located between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets.  Submitted by BNIM Architects for Cinco Hombres, LLC & Pennsylvania Street Investors, LLC, property owners of record. 

 

PC Minutes 3/15/2006

ITEM NO. 11B:      M-2 TO C-5; 0.541 ACRE & M-3 TO C-5; 4.0 ACRES; BETWEEN 8TH & 9TH STREETS AND NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE STREETS (LAP)         

 

Z-01-01-06:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 0.541 acre from M-2 (General Industrial) District to C-5 (Limited Commercial) District, and 4.0 acres from M-3 (Intensive Industrial) District to C-5 (Limited Commercial) District.  The property is generally described as being located between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets.  Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers for Cinco Hombres, LLC & Pennsylvania Street Investors, LLC, property owners of record. 

 

PC Minutes 3/15/2006

ITEM NO. 11C:      PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 8TH & PENNSYLVANIA NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT; BETWEEN 8TH & 9TH STREETS AND NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE STREETS (LAP)          

 

PP-01-04-06:  Preliminary Plat for 8th & Pennsylvania Redevelopment.  This proposed redevelopment contains approximately 4.541 acres.  The property is generally described as being located between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets.  Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers for Cinco Hombres, LLC & Pennsylvania Street Investors, LLC, property owners of record.

 

PC Minutes 3/15/2006

ITEM NO. 11D:     FINAL PLAT FOR 8TH & PENNSYLVANIA NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT; BETWEEN 8TH & 9TH STREETS AND NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE STREETS (LAP) 

 

PF-01-03-06:  Final Plat for 8th & Pennsylvania Redevelopment.  This proposed redevelopment contains approximately 4.541 acres.  The property is generally described as being located between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets.  Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers for Cinco Hombres, LLC & Pennsylvania Street Investors, LLC, property owners of record.

 

 

 

 

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator, began the presentation by explaining the applicant’s intent to create a mixed-use development encompassing residential, office and limited retail uses.  As part of this development, a portion of the subject area was also proposed as a new historic district within the City of Lawrence.  She showed the approximate boundaries of the proposed new district, noting that a portion of this area was already listed on the Register of Historic Kansas Places and the nomination for the National Register was pending. 

 

Ms. Zollner described the nomination process and the criteria the district must meet to obtain a national listing.  She said that placement on the National Register would make the district eligible for tax credits to assist with rehabilitation efforts proposed in the overall development.  These included a return to original brick streets in some areas and several building renovations, all within the identified boundaries of the proposed historic district.

 

Ms. Zollner said her department and the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association were excited about this opportunity preserve the buildings, neighborhood pattern and character of East Lawrence.  She added that the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) was enthusiastic about establishing the UCO (Urban Conservation Overlay) District in the City.  She explained what the UCO was and how it worked to achieve the goals of historic preservation.

 

Ms. Zollner showed photographs of the major structures in the proposed UCO, noting the characteristic grid street patterns, sidewalk placement and sizable industrial core of the neighborhood.  She said some buildings would retain their industrial use with the proposed redevelopment, but some were no longer suitable for intensive industrial uses.  The applicant was working with Staff to protect and conserve these buildings by rehabilitating them (possibly with tax credits) for modern uses that would entail minor interior changes and minimal exterior modifications.

 

Ms. Leininger introduced the portion of the development proposal covered by Item 10.  This was a proposed amendment to Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan that would establish the Mixed-Use Redevelopment Center to address mixed-use developments like the one proposed in Items 11A-11D. The development proposed in these items was used as a base-line for creating guidelines to be adopted as part of the Mixed-Use Redevelopment Center amendment.  These guidelines included:

 

  • The Mixed-Use Redevelopment Center should be used to encouraging redevelopment where existing structures are underutilized, vacant or subject to high tenancy turnover;
  • The Mixed-Use Redevelopment Center should encompass no more than 6 acres;
  • The Mixed-Use Redevelopment Center should include a mix of residential, civic, office and small-scale commercial uses;
  • Commercial uses should make up no more than 25% of the net center area
  • No single retail use may contain more than 16,000 square feet of a ground floor level;
  • The Mixed-Use Redevelopment Center should maintain and provide transitions between uses with alleyways and landscape buffers;
  • The Mixed-Use Redevelopment Center should incorporate and maintain historic buildings and their traditional spacing; and
  • The Mixed-Use Redevelopment Center should encourage multi-modal transportation with pedestrian-scale facilities, bicycle parking, and connections to public transportation.

 

Ms. Leininger responded to questioning that the 6 acre cap was based on the current 5 acre cap set by the Zoning Ordinance stating the minimum area required for an Urban Conservation Overlay District.  This was increased to 6 acres to allow some flexibility when considering a variety of developments. 

 

Burress suggested the 6 acre cap might be too restrictive and asked if the Commission might consider not stating a specific size limit for the overlay districts.

 

It was discussed that, while PCD zoning might be applied for some kinds of mixed use development, the UCO was specifically designed for this use and was considered by Staff to provide the highest chances for success.

 

Ms. Pool introduced the rezoning and plats that made up Items 11B-11D.  Ms. Pool identified the zoning and uses of surrounding properties and showed the boundaries of the project area.  She explained the proposed C-5 zoning was necessary to accommodate a mix of uses and would be less intense than the general and intensive industrial zonings currently in place.  It was discussed that C-5 zoning would regulate only the uses, while the associated Design Guidelines would establish other elements such as parking, setbacks, density, etc.  She noted the applicant proposed a density of 32 dwelling units per acre.  This is more dense than the RM-2 District, but less dense than the RM-3 District.

 

Ms. Pool noted that the plat applications include the area to be rezoned to the C-5 District, in addition to an M-3 zoned property to the east of the proposed Delaware Street extension. The M-3 property will retain its industrial zoning with the project. Ms. Pool also described elements of the proposed preliminary and final plats:

  • The proposed extension of Delaware Street will include 60’ of right-of-way and will result in the continuation of the grid street network already present in the neighborhood.
  • Sidewalks will be provided on both sides of Pennsylvania and Delaware Streets and along the southern side of 8th Street abutting the proposed lots. Pedestrian easements should be shown where sidewalks are not required by Code.
  • Buffering and transitions will be important in mitigating impacts.
  • With the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to include mixed-use redevelopment centers, the rezoning and plats will be in conformance with Horizon 2020.

 

 

 

 

Other points were clarified:

  • A Comprehensive Plan amendment to include mixed-use zoning districts is necessary to complete this proposal. 
  • The City Commission will receive documentation of the HRC’s decision on the proposed new historic district and associated design guidelines.  The boundaries of the proposed district might be modified if that was considered prudent.
  • The City Commission will also receive documentation of the Planning Commission’s hearing, including public comment and review of the rezonings, plats, and Comprehensive Plan amendment.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Stan Meyers, Bartlett & West Engineers, introduced other members of the development team.  Mr. Meyers said that, as part of the plat process, the development team had completed studies for drainage, sanitary sewer and traffic impact, all of which were reviewed and approved by Staff.

There was discussion about a letter submitted by Bill Penny, Penny’s Concrete, Inc., about changes to existing area streets that he believed may hamper his existing business in the area.  Specifically, Mr. Penny asked if street-side parking would reduce turning radii for heavy truck traffic at Pennsylvania & 8th, Pennsylvania & 9th, and 9th & Delaware Streets.  Staff said the streets would be designed per City standards and should leave adequate maneuverability for the trucks.

 

It was established that Mr. Penny’s concerns should be noted when public improvement plans were submitted for the proposed development.  Each site plan would then also be designed with his concerns in mind.

 

Bo Harris, applicant, said the concrete trucks had a general pattern they followed and he did not think changes proposed by this development would impact that path.

 

Mr. Harris spoke also about the bus company in the area, saying there was a consistent problem of busses parked on Pennsylvania Street, especially early in the morning. He said the situation should improve with his project.

 

Mr. Harris said this proposal started in 2001, at the same time as the Hobbs-Taylor loft development.  He said these were the only two “truly mixed use projects proposed or built in the city.”  Mr. Harris said he hoped to utilize semi-public improvements, mainly parking, to create a live-work-play concept similar to the lofts.  He added that the Hobbs-Taylor lofts were overbuilt for parking and he hoped to make better use of land in this second project.

 

Mr. Harris described the four zones making up the overall development proposal:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zone One – Historic District

The Poehler building will house the only residential use in Zone One, and living units will be contained only on the 3rd & 4th floors.  These will also be the only rental units in the entire development.  These units will become owner-occupied in the long-term, but renting was the only way to guarantee meeting the tax credit stipulation that the properties be held under the same ownership for 5 years.  The rest of the Poehler building and the other buildings in Zone One will contain a variety of office and retail uses.

 

Zone Two – Public Right-of-Way

The proposal currently included returning a section of Pennsylvania Street to its original brick surface.  The HRC and Historic Preservation Staff encouraged this idea and would like to see sections of 8th & 9th Street returned to brick, but they and the applicant understood the maintenance concerns of other City departments.

 

This development proposed to create off-street parking on both sides of Pennsylvania Street and to eliminate a number of curb cuts.  The new parking areas were being designed with porous surfaces to reduce existing stormwater runoff problems.

 

Zone Three – Limited Commercial

This zone seemed to be generating the most public interest.  It involved developing new mixed-use and residential buildings along the west side of Pennsylvania Street.

 

Two corner buildings at 8th & 9th Street were proposed for 3500 square feet of retail each on the ground floor, with owner-occupied loft condominiums on the upper floors.  Parking for these corner buildings would empty directly onto 8th & 9th Streets to prevent clogging the alley.

 

Zone Three also included three phases of row housing with associated covered parking.  The applicant had met with the neighborhood several times, taking their input or lack of input into consideration in forming a material selection board for the units in this zone.

 

Zone Four – Limited Commercial

This zone encompassed existing commercial areas to the east and north.

 

Hunter Harris, Prairie Living & Development, spoke about issues raised by the HRC and East Lawrence Neighborhood Association (ELNA), and how the development came to its current design.  Specifically, Mr. Harris explained the intent to provide an amount of “permanently affordable housing”, with the understanding that this term is necessarily subjective.  Units would be constructed in a variety of sizes and price points, with an average cost of a 1- to 2-bedroom unit of around $100,000.  The applicant was in negotiations with Tenants to Homeowners to take ownership of 10% of these units to fill through their housing program.  The affordable housing element necessitates greater density for the west side of the street, and the applicant felt the density and building height proposed was suitable for the area and the project.

 

Mr. Harris also spoke about the intent to share parking between residents (night) and office and commercial uses (day) – an idea his team had seen work successfully in Kansas City.

 

Ed Tato, Lawrence resident, said he had been involved closely with Tenants to Homeowners for a number of years. He provided additional information about how the program worked and responded to questioning that tenants were able to take advantage of a limited amount of property appreciation.

 

Mr. Harris provided details about each type of housing proposed, including the rental units in the Poehler building and the row houses.  He then responded to several questions:

 

  • It might be possible to return some of the parking area to greenspace if the development ends up with too much parking (as claimed about the Hobbs-Taylor lofts), but the development would have to maintain compliance with Secretary of Interior standards. 
  • It has not yet been determined what entity will pay for the proposed road improvements, but the applicant is amenable to signing an Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for Future Traffic Improvements.
  • A traffic study has been completed and reviewed by City Staff which states the proposed development will have minimal impact on traffic conditions in the area.  This study was done for an expanded area per Staff’s request.

 

There was discussion about pedestrian-friendly and common open space elements built into the proposal.  It was noted that a large park-like common open space was not planned but several smaller open spaces were included.  Community events could be held off the sheltered area along extended Delaware Street, and an area with rail cars would be included north of the industrial building. Bo Harris said these areas would be maintained through a common area maintenance system.

 

There was discussion about the suggestion that the proposed Delaware Street extension echoed an unsuccessful traffic design tried in the past.  Bo Harris said the referenced “Haskell Loop” was located further to the east and was intended to take advantage of 8th Street.  It was stated that the traffic issues in the overall area were too large to reasonably expect one developer to fix.  The extension of Delaware Street would help disperse traffic throughout the area.

 

Bo Harris expressed concern about Staff’s recommended changes to the proposed parking standards.  He said the design currently shown was consistent with similar types of development in other communities and was fitting for the kinds of uses they wanted to encourage.

 

The applicant was also concerned about Staff’s recommendation for a larger greenspace setback than was current proposed.  The plat showed a 3’ greenspace setback for parking areas along the street, but Staff recommended an increase to 8’.  Ms. Stogsdill explained this recommendation was on behalf of the Parks & Recreation department, which required a minimum of 8’ to accommodate trees.  Sally Schwenk, consultant to the applicant on historic preservation issues, noted that Kansas environs law asked the developer to consider impact on the historic character of the area.  An increase in the greenspace setback as recommended by Staff would disrupt the established sidewalk and street-side greenspace pattern in Zone One.

 

Ermeling said she would like to see additional limitations in lighting design to minimize impacts, such as fully-shielded lighting and height restrictions.  Bo Harris said he would be amenable to considering these stipulations, but reminded the Commission that lighting in Zone One must also retain its historic character.  It was verified that the Planning Commission would not review the site plan for this development, so conditions about lighting would need to be applied to the Design Guidelines.

 

Burress said the Design Guideline language for the overlay district did not seem very strong; using “recommended” and “not recommended” instead of “shall (not)” or “will (not).”  It was discussed that the language left some flexibility to apply to a variety of buildings and situations. Ms. Zollner said this language was modeled after the language of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court.  

 

As the Commission entered the public hearing for Items 10 and 11A – 11B, the public was asked to refrain from excessive repetition, and the Chair suggested that audience members might show their support and agreement for a speaker by raising their hand following his/her testimony.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT – Item 10 only

Janet Good spoke on behalf of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, saying the neighborhood was pleased the City was ready to put mixed-use zoning in place, since that had been the neighborhood character for a long time.  The ELNA hoped this project would lead the way for other developments fulfilling the goals the City said it wanted to pursue but had previously taken no steps to achieve:  walkable neighborhoods, mixed uses, creative greenspace, and other elements of the New Urbanism concept.

 

Burress asked if the ELNA shared his concern about impacts of new development/redevelopment on the existing neighborhood.  He felt the proposed design guidelines were not specific enough about traffic impacts.  There was discussion about whether stronger/additional text was needed.  Staff noted that the policies of Chapter 6 of Horizon 2020 would still be applicable to the overlay district.

 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Krebs addressed the 6-acre size limit for mixed-use redevelopment centers, saying this may have been included in response to comments at the Study Session.  She clarified that her size concerns were relative to commercial uses only.  More than one Commissioner was concerned that a 6-acre max for the entire district might be too restrictive, but not so much concern was expressed about limiting retail uses to 25% of the net area.  It was suggested that they remove the acreage limitation, while adding a specific square footage limitation for retail uses, regardless of the size of the overall district.  Haase said that applying arbitrary numbers without a retail impact analysis for each proposed development was “not the direction we’ve been going.” 

 

Jennings suggested applying a square footage cap for each individual building; this would limit the area to the kind of “mom & pop” retail uses they would like to see in this kind of development.  Krebs asked if this cap would be set lower than the 16,000 ground floor square feet currently proposed in the guidelines.

 

Staff clarified that this proposal was an entirely new kind of commercial center from the ones currently listed in the Comprehensive Plan – somewhere between the existing neighborhood commercial center and inner-neighborhood commercial center.  Criteria for reviewing this new (to Lawrence) commercial concept and developing an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for mixed-use redevelopment centers were based on criteria for existing commercial centers in Chapter 6.  The guidelines also replicated language from Goal 4 in Chapter 6 about transportation considerations.

 

Lawson said trying to microtune the document at this point was unproductive.  He said everyone should understand that this was exploratory and changes would likely be needed in the future.  Other Commissioners agreed that “field testing” would provide valuable information needed for making the best modifications.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Harris to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Chapter 6 of Horizon 2020 as presented by Staff and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval.

 

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

 

 

PUBLIC COMMENT – Items 11A & 11B

Owen Lehmann, 1008 New York Street, expressed concern that his own properties would be negatively impacted by the proposed development.  He supported the historic preservation element but the C-5 zoning posed significant problems and failures. 

 

Mr. Lehmann said Pennsylvania Street is used as a truck route today and the residents did not want those trucks diverted onto neighborhood streets.

 

Mr. Lehmann clarified that he had serious concerns about an overlay district that included land the applicant did not own.  He asked the Commission to reject the overlay district and to make the applicant submit a revised plan for only the properties he (the applicant) owned.

 

Erin Adamson, 1036 New York Street, said the applicant had worked closely with the neighborhood on the development concept for the east side of Pennsylvania Street and they appreciated this effort.  However, the same joint consideration had not been given to the west side of the street.

 

Ms. Adamson said she supported mixed use development, but felt the proposed west side density was too high for this part of the neighborhood.  She asked the Commission to defer the west side rezoning until the applicant and neighborhood could discuss this element.

 

Janet Good, ELNA, echoed the previous comments that Zone One was an excellent concept that was a long time coming.  But she also agreed that the row housing element, while mentioned by the applicant early in the development process, had been vague until only recently.  She said the neighborhood had not had sufficient time to discuss Zone Three, and listed specific concerns with parking, density, and the cost of the infrastructure.

 

Ms. Good also noted that the guidelines appeared to allow telecommunications towers in Zone One.  She suggested this was an odd, modern ingredient for a historic district.  It was discussed that cell towers must be allowed in all zoning districts per federal law, but this area was a topographic low point in Lawrence and frequent cell tower requests here were not likely.

 

Ms. Good said the proposed Design Guidelines did address many of the neighborhood’s concerns about setbacks, etc.  However, the ELNA wanted to register their significant concerns about some of the allowable uses in C-5 zoning, such as bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, loan shops, pawn shops, drive ups and drive-throughs.

 

Ms. Good stated that the proposal didn’t include enough greenspace or open space. She also commented on the proposed shared parking, saying many area residents were elderly, worked odd hours, or were otherwise not vacating their parking spots in the typical 7:45-5:15 pattern.

 

KT Walsh, 732 Rhode Island, referenced the cell tower issue, asking if the towers were required to be removable and who paid for their removal.  It was verified that cell towers were allowed through a CUP or UPR, and the Commission placed a standard condition on these that the applicant must remove the tower within 3 years of its becoming inactive.

 

Ms. Walsh expressed concern about the proposed design guidelines, saying this document would regulate minutiae that would have significant impacts on existing residents.  She said this had not been a serious concern until hearing tonight that the guideline language was stronger than it had seemed (Re: recommended/not recommended).

 

Krebs outlined for the public the revised parking standards recommended by Staff for this development:

  • Increase the parking requirement for retail food uses from 1 space per 1000 square feet to 1 space per 250 square feet;
  • Increase the parking requirement for other retail uses to 1 space per 500 square feet;
  • Increase the parking requirement for residential units with 2+ bedrooms to 2 spaces per unit.

 

Haase added that a recent publication from the Urban Land Institute provided testing data showing that shared parking does work in mixed-use developments.

 

Phil Collison, 933 Pennsylvania, asked that the overlay district not be approved until the neighborhood could have more discussion with the applicant.  He said it sounded like a large portion of the development was not yet finalized, such as greenspace and the potential affordable housing component.  He added that comparisons to successful projects in Kansas City were moot, since this was a different, less urban setting.

 

Beth Rowlands, 1414 New York Street, said she thought the proposed density was “too much of a jump”, and she would like to see this revised to somewhere between single-family and what was currently proposed.

 

David Evans, 923 Delaware, provided history about the Haskell Loop.  He said this failed attempt involved the condemnation and demolition of several single-family homes along the west side of Pennsylvania Street.

 

Pete Laufer, 407 E. 10th Street, said he appreciated the applicant’s attempt to take on a project that no other local developer would try.  He said he understood the applicant was dependent upon funding that went beyond his own pockets and he had an obligation to design a financially feasible development.  This said, Mr. Laufer asked what benefit this project would bring for those residents who made a commitment to the neighborhood back when it was not such a desirable place to live.  They had stayed and made the area a quiet, safe place to live – would it stay that way?

 

Dayna Carlton, 937 Connecticut, said this seemed like a reasonable type of development for the area, but the appropriate mixed use zoning was not yet available.  She said C-5 zoning seemed extreme and repeated concerns about the kinds of uses allowed in C-5 zoning.

 

Ms. Carlton expanded on the history of the Haskell Loop, saying the reason the west side of Pennsylvania Street was no longer residential was because established residents were “kicked out” of their homes to make room for the now-failed Haskell Loop.  She said it was painful for her to see that working class people were removed in the past and now “rich people are moving in.”

 

Ed Tato, 1016 Pennsylvania, explained he was working as a consultant to the applicant on the “affordable housing” component of the project.  He said this was an important piece of the puzzle and he was willing to “give a little” on the density to make sure some housing for lower income residents could be included.  He said the design of the units and the urban context alleviated a lot of density concerns.  He added that of course this development would increase traffic, but that the area’s streets were designed to handle this type of density.

 

Judy Romero, 929 Pennsylvania Street, spoke about the negative impacts of undesirable uses near her property, which led to expanded concerns about similar intrusive uses in the overall neighborhood.

 

Nickie Proudfoot, 820 New Jersey, said that this type of urban design was typically applied to a much larger area and was unsuitable for a development of this size.  She noted that this development included at least two pieces that did not fit the typical standards of urban design – it was surrounding by parking and did not provide a central gathering area.

 

Godfred Beard, 842 New York Street, expressed concern that existing property owners would have to share in the cost of a benefit district made necessary by this development.

 

Allona Winner, 825 New Jersey, said she was afraid neighborhood gentrification would raise her own property taxes out of her range of affordability.  She also shared the concerns of previous speakers about truck traffic diverting into the neighborhood, saying these streets were not constructed to handle heavy truck traffic.

 

9:35 p.m. - The Commission took a 10 minute recess and agreed unanimously to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.

 

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Bo Harris asked to state for the record that the boards used for tonight’s presentation were the same ones used in previous neighborhood meetings, public meetings and community picnics.  These had all been discussed with the public at great length and many changes had been made in response to input received at those venues.  He respectfully suggested that anyone with serious concerns about the development would have been and had been involved in the process a long time before this point.  He expressed frustration at this level of “late interest at a time when delays are more expensive.” He had not seen over 50% of the people at tonight’s meeting at any of the previous neighborhood meetings.

 

Bo Harris addressed the two main issues raised in the public hearing:  density and traffic.  He said an expanded traffic impact study had been completed, encompassing boundaries recommended by City Staff.  The City had expressed no opposition to the study’s finding that the area streets were capable of handling the traffic generated by this project.

 

The applicant had every intention of including an affordable housing element in the development, even though the details of that agreement had not yet been finalized.  The acquisition costs on the west side of Pennsylvania Street drove density within that portion of the development.

 

Finally, Bo Harris discussed existing conditions that would be replaced by the project, resulting in a much better neighborhood for everyone:

  • Renovation of three fenced in lots populated with parked busses and stacks of tires;
  • Removal of a rusted Quonset hut;
  • Elimination or reduction of lines of busses parked on the streets to warm up in the early mornings;
  • Replacement of unlawful multi-family rental residents (and associated parking use) with predominately owner-occupied units.

 

Bo Harris agreed that some details were not yet determined (ex. garage design), but these would be settled at the proper time and in accordance with City standards.

 

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Staff had no additional comments.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

It was established that Staff had pursued multiple options for restricting certain uses out of the proposed C-5 zoning, but had been unsuccessful in finding any way to do this that could be supported by the City’s legal department.

 

In response to a comment from the public asking that the overlay district be subject to the “55% Rule” for restaurant uses, Staff explained that this regulation was specifically applicable to the Downtown area’s C-3 zoning.

 

Hunter Harris responded to questioning that the applicant was in complete agreement with the neighborhood about the undesirability of “noxious uses.”  He said the inclusion of these uses would be completely against the kind of development the applicant was spending millions of dollars to achieve.  Burress said that, unfortunately, the Commission must consider rezoning not based on what the applicant intended, but rather on what uses were appropriate for the area.  Ms. Stogsdill pointed out that the C-5 zoning would not be “unfettered”, but would be somewhat limited by the overlay district design guidelines.

 

There was discussion about the possibility of conditioning zoning.  Ermeling said that she had pursued this issue with Planning and Legal Staff, and she was convinced that this was not a possibility.  Haase expressed frustration at having no mechanism “to get where we all want to go.”  He encouraged Staff to continue investigating the creation of this much-needed tool.

 

Krebs asked if there was a way to make the affordable housing element a requirement of the proposal.  Ms. Zollner agreed to continue researching the precedent of this kind of condition as part of the design guidelines.  It was suggested that the Commission could communicate this desire to the City Commission, recommending a note on the site plan.  It was additionally suggested that the applicant could create covenants requiring an affordable housing component, but noted that the City could not be involved in the adoption or enforcement of covenants. 

 

It was verified that Staff agreed with the applicant that the proposed density was appropriate for the area, provided adequate parking was provided as outlined in the Staff memo.

 

Several points were mentioned:

  • The UCO district was initiated by the HRC and did not require the agreement of a majority of the affected property owners.
  • The Design Guidelines for the overlay district were subject to amendment through the normal public hearing process.
  • While the Commission may be sympathetic to the unfairness of the Haskell Loop construction to past east Lawrence residents, they (the Commission) were in no position to “make it right” with this development.
  • While it is understood that, in general, negative impacts can reduce property values and gentrification might increase said values, it is not possible that both effects can be made on the same property by the same project.
  • It is inevitable that a project of this size and nature can never satisfy everyone.  There are always some parties that feel they have not had adequate input. 
  • The Commission must be mindful of the balance between public benefit and financial feasibility.
  • The Commission may make conditions related to an eventual benefit district, but has no say in how the costs of the benefit district are allocated.
  • The development must provide sufficient density to support the small retail uses the neighborhood and applicant agreed they wanted in this area.
  • If density were reduced, the remaining units would necessarily become more expensive.
  • It is difficult to reconcile the neighborhood’s request for more parking and more green space.  This can only be accomplished by removing a significant number of units, which would raise the price per unit that some felt was already unacceptably high.
  • This proposal may bring more families into the neighborhood, which would benefit neighborhood schools.

 

Haase expanded on the information published by the Urban Land Institute on shared parking.  Staff was directed to gather information about shared parking from the ULI materials and Smart Code data to present when the City Commission heard this item, with the possible result of changing Staff’s recommendation to revise the applicant’s proposed parking standards.  Ms. Stogsdill pointed out that Staff’s recommended increase in required parking was still significantly lower than required by the current City Code.

 

Haase pointed out that this was the first time he had seen a proposal mixing socio-economic levels within the same development.  Most affordable housing projects involved a large section of isolated units.  He appreciated the applicant’s attempt to follow a model that was favored nationwide and reflected the ideals of the neighborhood.

 

Burress asked if placing this density (54 units) across the street from existing, much lower density (12 units), created its own kind of isolation.  Ermeling suggested that housing types might be utilized to minimize this disparity.

 

Krebs suggested that the Commission state for the record that they encourage the City Commission to condition the site plan to include an affordable housing element.

 

There was discussion about the provision of common open space.  It was noted that the applicant was providing small patches of open space throughout the development, and suggested it was unreasonable to ask for a park-like setting in an area this small.    Additionally, Hobbs Park is located between 10th and 11th Streets to the south of the project.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Erickson to approve the Zoning Overlay District as presented by Staff, with additional conditions as follows:

o        A note should be added stating that all external lighting will be shielded to prevent off-site glare.

o        Staff shall explore the shared parking concept before the City Commission hearing to see if the Smart Code formula is appropriate for use in this project; and

o        Minimum 3-foot greenspace setback for parking lots from lot lines.

o        Staff shall research a method by which to limit certain noxious uses from the allowable uses within the C-5 zoning district prior to the City Commission meeting.

 

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

The Commission discussed the 3’ parking lot landscaping setback, with Staff reiterating the Parks Department statement that they would not plant trees in anything less than 8’ of public right-of-way.  Within the development, the applicant is allowed to plant trees in an area smaller than 3’ wide, as long as the regulated amount of landscaping was maintained.

 

Haase explained he had a long history of voting in favor of neighborhood concerns.  However, in this case he would support the project because he strongly believed the development would be a significant benefit to East Lawrence.

 

ACTIONS TAKEN

Item 11A – Overlay District

Motion on the floor was to approve the Zoning Overlay District and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following revised conditions:

 

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

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

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

Parking Requirements

10.  Staff was directed by the Planning Commission to develop a memo refining the project’s parking utilizing the shared parking calculations in the Smart Code prior to consideration of the Design Guidelines by the City Commission on April 4, 2006.

11.  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

12.   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)

13.  A note should be added stating that all external lighting will be fully shielded to prevent off-site glare.  Light fixtures should be non-reflective, with non-swivel heads mounted at a 45 degree angle so as to contain the light within the project boundaries.

Screening

14.  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)

15.  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

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

Development Review Process

17.  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

18.  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.

 

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

 

 

Item 11B - Rezoning

There was additional discussion about the lack of ability to restrict uses.  The neighborhood and applicant agreed about what uses were not suitable in this area but the Commission had no way to regulate this.

 

Burress asked how essential Lot 1, Block C was to the overall project.  Hunter Harris explained this was identified as the first residential phase, since it was under the applicant’s ownership and could be used to finance the historic rehabilitation on the east side of the street.  He added that mixed uses on the corners of 8th & 9th Streets would serve as anchors for the block.

 

It was established that the Commission could condition the final plat that the applicant must file covenants with the Register of Deeds, but enforcement of these covenants was not within the City’s purview.  Staff was directed to look for ways to restrict uses in cases such as this, because it was assumed that similar complications would arise as mixed-use development became more popular with the development community.  Hunter Harris said the applicant was willing to place use restrictions on the development that homeowners and commercial property owners would retain under a Landowner’s Association.

 

It was suggested that the Commission might revisit the overlay district if a mechanism was found to regulate use restrictions.  Staff expressed concern at the legal implications of changing a given approval.

 

ACTIONS TAKEN

Item 11B - Rezoning

Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of 0.541 acres from M-2 to C-5 and 4.0 acres from M-3 to C-5 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:

 

1. Filing of the final plat at the Register of Deed’s Office.

 

          Motion carried 8-1, with Haase, Lawson, Eichhorn, Jennings, Erickson, Ermeling, Krebs, and Harris voting in favor.  Burress voted in opposition.

 

           

11C – Preliminary Plat

Motioned by Haase, seconded by Ermeling to approve the Preliminary Plat for 8th & Pennsylvania neighborhood redevelopment, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. Revision of the plat to include the following:

a.            Notation of the construction of new sidewalks along the eastern and western sides of Pennsylvania and Delaware Streets and along the southern side of 8th Street. These sidewalks should be a minimum of five feet in width.

b.            Provision of pedestrian easements along one side of Pennsylvania and Delaware Street and along the southern side of 8th Street.

c.            Notation of a future transit stop on the west side of Delaware Street, as noted in the Design Guidelines.

d.            Notation of project gross acreage and acreage within each zoning district within the Site Summary.

 

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

 

 

Item 11D – Final Plat

Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Lawson to approve the Final Plat for 8th & Pennsylvania neighborhood redevelopment as proposed and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
    1. A current copy of a paid property tax receipt.
    2. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
    3. A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-7081.3.
  2. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
  3. Submittal of Agreements Not to Protest Improvements to the intersections of 9th and Connecticut Streets and 11th and Delaware Streets.
  4. Submittal of public improvement plans for the extension of Delaware Street, sidewalks along both sides of Pennsylvania and Delaware Streets and along the southern side of 8th Street, reconstruction of Pennsylvania Street to expose original brick, and extension and/or upgrade of sanitary sewer, stormwater, and water mains.
  5. Prior to scheduling of the final plat on an agenda for City Commission acceptance of rights-of-ways and easements, a downstream wastewater analysis will need to be approved by the City’s Utilities Department. [Note: The Planning Office received notification of approval of the downstream wastewater analysis by the Utilities Department on March 10, 2006. Any change/addition to the type or density of development other than what was submitted with the original wastewater study requires an updated study.]
  6. Revision of the plat to include the following:
    1. Pedestrian easements should be shown on the final plat along one side of Pennsylvania and Delaware Streets and along the southern side of 8th Street. These easements are necessary to ensure that sidewalks are constructed with the subject project on both sides of 8th and Pennsylvania Streets and along the southern side of 8th Street. These sidewalks should be a minimum of five feet in width.

 

          Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

 

 

DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION

Ermeling encouraged members of the public to submit any suggestions about possible amendments to the UCO design guidelines prior to City Commission consideration.