PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

PC Minutes 5/22/06

ITEM NO. 7: ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT; BETWEEN 8^TH & 9^TH STREETS AND NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE STREETS (LBZ)

Z-12-80-05:  Establishment of a Zoning Overlay District for the 8^th 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. 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Zollner introduced the item and explained the correct area was not noticed properly for the March PC meeting per article 18. HRC initiated rezoning of the overlay district and it was different in process from a typical rezoning. When the oversight was noted, the item was placed on the agenda for May, signs were posted and property owner letters were sent. Design guidelines, history, and the original staff report were presented. City Commission will be given all documentation including minutes from the March and May meetings. Including, as a recommendation, the changes suggested by the Planning Commission at the March meeting.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Bo Harris, applicant, representing 8^th & Pennsylvania Neighborhood redevelopment stated he has been through the process previously with the commission and gave a short overview of project.

Burress expressed a concern with density development and asked if density is determined by the underlying zoning rather than the design guidelines.

Mr. Harris replied that overlay district controls the density of the project.

Burress commented that density would be a legitimate subject for public hearing right now.

Mr. Harris gave a presentation of slides addressing density and regarding streetscapes, project timeline, schematics, neighborhood concerns. Density would be in Zone 3 of the project. Primary concerns of neighborhood are traffic, C-5 use limitations of property, parking, density, funding of infrastructure and gentrification of all of East Lawrence. Plan changes made along the way impacted traffic. He completed the traffic study from 11^th to 7^th Streets and from the project itself to west of Connecticut which studied all the intersections. The current plan reduces density, parking and traffic issues and removed 6 units from the project. Mr. Harris indicated neighbors expressed concern with the number of cars using the alley as transportation through the corridor which have been addressed by changing exits to the 8^th and 9^th St corridors rather than to the alley for the corner buildings.

Mr. Harris presented multiple slides addressing traffic study and notes from the traffic study summary.

Things done to address C-5 use limitations:

• UCD or UCO Document addresses many issues that will impact use of the facilities.
• HOA_CAM
• Covenants and restrictions
• Deed or site plan restrictions.

There will be no rental units only sold units with a HOA document and common area maintenance fees in certain buildings. There will be covenants and restrictions which control quality and activities in the units. Mr. Harris is agreeable to either deed or site plan restrictions that will fill the need.

Mr. Harris presented the parking calculations and plan change and discussed the Smart code requirements. Parking required is 177 (developer’s standards). Mr. Harris said it was important to note that the public went away with the impression that they were going to have 177 parking spots. He feels that is the trade off between sustainable development, green space and the alternatives for mixed uses and to share parking in different locations and go through pedestrian patterns.

Proposal provides for:

• Zone I off street 154, on street 75
• Zone III-covered lot 40, garages 30, on street 42 8^th and 9^th and Pennsylvania
• Zone IV off street 45 on street 49
• Total-off street 269, on street 166
• Total of 435

Mr. Harris gave his interpretation of density; when he thinks density, he thinks first of vitality of the area, sense of place, the smart code aspects of the density, the relationship to downtown Lawrence, the walking distance that is provided, the alternate transportation, all above economic issues. As economic issue alone, Mr. Harris is asking for 54 units. The corner building will contain 3500 sq ft retail, offices, services or professional and balance is covered parking. Replicated on both corners in between there are 10 units of contemporary brownstone type structure with walk up entrances, patios and wells then up a half a flight to a townhouse that is a two story dwelling. Project is 2 ½ stories tall. Mr. Harris explained there is good visibility from the parking to the residential and a good travel pattern for it. UCD document references the tallest building being the keynote building, others are mentioned in reference to the Poehler Building. He presented a slide with layout of green space, alley, buildings, residential and garages showing height and scale standpoint. 11 ft difference in grade elevation of ground. Tallest building about 25 ft to ridge of structure.

Mr. Harris said the project will provide between 10-20% affordable housing. He is working with Lawrence Land Trust. They would be the owner of the affordable units in the project, would administer the program and would be permanently affordable with mixed income levels.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Harris inquired about the configuration of the back side of the second level on the corner retail buildings facing the alley. Harris asked if the space will be usable.

Mr. Harris explained that the buildings will have windows facing the alley and that the space in question is residential and will be usable.

PUBLIC HEARING

Ed Tato, 1016 Pennsylvania, former president of East Lawrence Neighborhood Association and former secretary of the board of Tenants to Homeowners. Mr. Tato questioned how to reduce sprawl if there cannot be density within 4/10 mile of downtown. He said neighbors are concerned about density but he is not because 8^th and 9^th Streets are completely underused. He also is not concerned about traffic clogging those streets; he expressed a greater concern with Haskell and 11^th Street. He feels the traffic from that area is coming from the density built on the perimeter of the city. He noted there are few ways into the downtown area from the east. Mr. Tato implored the Planning Commission, City Commission or Staff consider the areas of Connecticut, 13^th Street, Haskell and 11^th Streets and the impact of traffic in those areas in 2025. We’re going to have so much coming in from the East there’s just no way to get here. He would like to make Connecticut a residential friendly street by seeking alternate routes for truck and through traffic. Mr. Tato doesn’t feel the project will be an issue in the neighborhood and requests that everyone is realistic about how alleys are now with abandoned cars, multiple cars and weeds that are 4 ft high. He continued, the project will not stress the neighborhood and the advantages of density and low-income housing built privately far outweigh the overblown scares and issues regarding density.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Lawson to accept and approve Item 7, zoning overlay district between 8^th and 9^th Streets per recommendation by staff.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Burress stated he voted against the residential part of the zoning last time although he probably voted for the design portion. He sees the issue as being settled and feels it is a good project that is good for the city. Burress thinks we have to have projects as dense as this or even denser but expresses concerns regarding people currently in the neighborhood accepting the change in density. Burress stated he was going to compromise and vote for the motion.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to recommend approval of Item 7, zoning overlay district between 8^th and 9^th Streets per recommendation by staff and forward the application to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report.

Planning Staff also recommends the approval of the proposed Design Guidelines and proposed boundaries for the overlay district as presented in the report from the Historic Resources Commission (Attachment B) and forwarding it to the City Commission subject to the following conditions:

1. The Design Guidelines document shall be modified to contain the appropriate minimums, maximums, landscaping and parking requirements.

2. The Design Guidelines shall include information on the future development process.

Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.