REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 

Consider approval of the Aberdeen preliminary development plan, Stoneridge and West 6^th Street, subject to conditions and use restrictions:

a)  PDP-01-02-06:  Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6^th Street.  This proposed multi-family planned residential development contains 108 proposed apartment units and including four duplex units on approximately 9.59 acres.  The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of W. 6^th Street and Stoneridge Drive. 

Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report.  She said staff looked at this property for a rezoning request back in August of 2005 and recommended approval for a Planned Unit Development.  A Planned Unit Development was submitted to the Planning Commission early this spring, having gone through a number of different revisions at the staff level and then through the Planning Commission a number of different times through revisions.  She said it started out with a recommendation for denial in March after following discussions about transition and trying to provide some mixed type of housing uses on the property, but given some of the density and height restrictions of that zoning, it became very much of a challenge.  The Planning Commission, following that action, directed the applicant to go back and have additional meetings with the neighborhood to try to address more concerns and ended up with a project that included duplex units on the eastern portion of the property that fronted the residential street with a balance of the apartment units being to the interior. 

She said another revision to the project included moving the activity area; the pool and clubhouse more to the central portion of the property.  She said it had gone through a number of different discussions both at the staff level, with the applicant and with the neighborhood.  She said the City Commission had a project that was recommended for approval subject to five conditions.  She said she thought that was a demonstration of the work that had gone on in the background before it came to the City Commission. 

She said the subject property was part of the West Lawrence Neighborhood.  She said there was a drainage easement that came through the property and divided it into an east and west half.  The primary access to the project would be coming from Stoneridge Drive, which was the collector street.  She said there was no direct access to West 6^th Street, which was consistent with their access management policies and there was a secondary access for emergency purposes only that would be located in a gated structure, but could be accessed in emergency purposes.  She said there was a bridge that crossed over the drainage and provided minimal connectivity on the pedestrian level either through sidewalks back through to the rest of the neighborhood.

Todd Thompson, attorney for the applicant, said even though this project had a long history, he had only been involved for a few months and in that short time they had seen the project make great progress from a project that had approximately 20 conditions associated with the project to one that was presented to them tonight with only five conditions, all of which had been agreed to.  He said all other conditions had been resolved. 

He said this project had a number of visits to the Planning Commission and had been studied very thoroughly by the Planning Commission.  He said as Planning Commissioner Haase said at the meeting last month, the applicant had done everything that had been asked of the applicant and it was time to move this project forward, which the Planning Commission recommended approval by a 9 -1 vote. 

He said Sandra Day discussed some of the changes that had been made to the plan.  He said those included moving the pool and the club house into the center of the project so that it was not bordering on the neighbors.  He said it included changing and raising a berm in a detention basin to assist with the screening of the project from the adjoining single family homes on the southeast.  He said it involved the replacement of an apartment building with duplexes to reduce the scale.  He said they also prepared elevations and discussed with staff, the materials that would be used for the construction and enhanced the visible areas of the buildings, in particular, by adding more brick and stone veneers. 

He said what they had was a project that had a long history; the plan had been studied extensively and repeatedly by the Planning Commission.  He said last time the Planning Commission looked at it they were pleased enough to vote 9 – 1 to recommend the City Commission approve this plan for which zoning was already approved by a unanimous vote. 

Paul Werner, architect for the project, said they had been through several plans.  The complex consisted of one and two bedroom units and a small clubhouse.  He said they were consistent in four sided architecture, meaning they were finished on all four sides with similar materials, unlike an older project which would dress up the front while the other three sides were a little different.  The smallest buildings, 8-plexes with one bedroom units, were all along the south portion that abutted the adjoining property.  This plan also showed the two duplexes in the southeast corner facing Stonecreek Drive so there was not an abrupt change to a different building type.  The overall grading had been studied extensively and a great deal of work had been done with the retaining walls along the north to lower the buildings as low as they could go so they were not imposing to the neighbors.  He said there was a great deal of grade to the site and a fairly significant amount of work.  He said the idea was to lessen the impact to the adjacent neighbors.

He said storm water was a significant issue on this side.  He said right now it was not controlled at all.  He said they had two detention ponds on both sides of the drainage channel on the south portion of the site.  He said this had been studied by LandPlan and approved by Matt Bond, the City Storm Water Engineer, and he thought the best thing for the site was to have it site planned and have a storm water control since right now it was not controlled at all.

He said they had not studied the west side too extensively, where those four buildings were located, only because their client also owned the property to the south.  He said they were much freer to grade, add berms, and work on the other property to the south.  He said they studied the east side of the drainage channel which LandPlan had reworked the detention area instead of just having it graded, they took on the added expensive of retaining walls so the detention area could be more vertical which would give them more space for the berms and added landscaping between the adjacent property owner and the first small building.

The clubhouse had been moved to the entrance of the project.  He said there was a concern the pool would be an issue adjacent to the neighbors so the pool was moved.

He presented and explained a detailed drawing of the area.  

Commissioner Highberger asked if the drawing was to scale.

Werner said absolutely.  He said they had gone through a number of changes and a lot of effort had been put forth on this plan.  The plan was brought to the City Commission with recommendation from the Planning Commission with a 9 – 1 vote.  

Commissioner Schauner asked what happened to the topography as one moved to the south or southeast.

Werner said it sloped significantly to the south from 6^th Street.  He said everything led to the drainage channel.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Werner had any sense of what the drop was in elevation from their property to the north and west of the house and the lowest point in that development to the south.

Werner said the first floor would be level with the grade at the back of that house.  He said they felt fairly accurate the first floor grade was essentially the same grade plus or minus a couple feet of the daylight basement grade of that person’s home.   

Commissioner Highberger asked what the approximate square footage and height was for each building.

Werner said those buildings were 2 stories, 9 foot plate heights and to the plate was 19 feet.  He said they had gone to low slope roofs that were 5-12 pitches, to keep that height down, which was the lowest they could go.  The actual way to measure that building was through a portion of that roof.  He said they lowered everything as much as they could, but they were stuck with the drainage channel that would take a lot of water off of 6^th Street.

Mayor Amyx said in August 2005 the City Commission approved rezoning for this property.  A lot of work had been done with this project not only by the applicant, but staff and the Planning Commission, which was probably one of the reasons for staff’s recommendation with those five conditions along with the 9-1 vote from the Planning Commission.  He asked if this development was the type of development the City Commission envisioned for this property.

Commissioner Schauner said in reviewing the City Commission minutes from August 16, 2005, one question asked by the then Mayor Highberger was, “If the zoning was approved before any construction occurred, the City Commission would need to approve a site plan and under that site plan review, the Commission would have the authority to determine whether the proposed uses were compatible with the adjacent uses.”  He said then Assistant City Manager Corliss said, “Correct, when the Commission was reviewing a site plan, they did have that general authority given those performance type languages in the site plan condition.  He said one of the criteria for approving the site plan was compatibility and the Commission could respond to something like that on height.  He said height was specifically mentioned in the site plan criteria, but that would be later in the process.”  He said as he had driven that area and thought about all the houses that were down the slope from that 8-plex, it seemed what people in that area saw as they looked up the hill was not significantly taller buildings, but buildings of significantly different massing than single family residences that neighbor that area.  He said his concern was whether that massing or scale of those buildings was consistent with what the average person would think of as a compatible neighbor.  He said he did not know if there was a right or wrong answer, but his suspicion was those who lived closest would be the last to believe it was compatible.  He said that issue was a question he would like to have some discussion about in whether the size, massing, height, and density was appropriate when all taken together. 

Mayor Amyx said if the City Commission was seeing something different than was anticipated at the time of rezoning, he asked if there was a feeling this item might be returned to the Planning Commission.  He said this rezoning was dealing with density on that particular piece of property.  He said if density was a problem, density was a completely different item than dealing with the development plan and was a different discussion.  He said what was before the City Commission was the development plan.  He said if the proposed uses were not compatible, the City Commission needed to give direction for whatever reasons, regarding compatibility.  He said the City Commission needed to be specific, if this was going to go back to the Planning Commission, on what was expected for this particular piece of property.

Commissioner Schauner said he agreed with Mayor Amyx, in terms of the City Commission not discussing density, because there was a zoning density permitted, but at the same time in order to maximize the density, the structures that were created were of such mass that those structures were not compatible neighbors from an appearance point of reference.  He said there was some connectivity between the concept of “density” and the concept of “compatibility.”  He said he was not talking about density, but the affect the density had on the size of the building.

Commissioner Rundle said this led him to bring up an old issue which was the need that the development plan would come at the same time as the zoning.  He said he thought it was hard to envision when approving the zoning, exactly what was going to come back on their preliminary development plan.  He said they could see now, what they could not see then, in terms of exceeding a compatible density.  He said they certainly could see what that density resulted in and it would have been good to have that density at the time.  He said he also had a concern about compatibility.

Mayor Amyx said regarding zoning and the development plan being reviewed at the same time, he asked if the City Commission would be making decisions on every development plan without actually making an “aye” or “nay” vote regarding whether or not the zoning itself, was compatible.  He said the plans could always change.

Commissioner Rundle said it might lead to reducing the density as a part of the zoning approval.  He said years ago it was written as an ordinance to have the zoning and development plan together and it was a matter of practice over the years, but they had drifted away from that practice.

Mayor Amyx said if everything had a plan that came along with zoning, that would be one thing, but sometimes that was not the case and he would hate to buy into something because it looked good and then find out later that they approved something they might not be able to get out of.

Commissioner Schauner said in theory, he agreed with Commissioner Rundle.  He said one of the problems was the amount of investment it took to get a plan brought concurrently with the zoning request.  He said in a perfect world, he would prefer that as well, but thought there were some practical difficulties in bringing all those pieces together at the same time and that was why they struggled with that issue on a regular basis.  He said the issue then became how the developer, builder, or landowner created a plan that was compatible.  He said there had been a number of occasions, in the past few years, where neighbors indicated they would not have bought a particular property if they would have known what was going next to that property.  He said he did not know how to fix it and did not know if they had a tool to do it very effectively.  He said he thought it was another example where they had raw ground that was now being developed in a way that a number of people were not particularly happy about.  He said they struggled with their compatibility and what standard they used to come to that conclusion.

Vice Mayor Hack said in a number of ways this project was an infill project.  Infill projects were always difficult because someone was always on the edge of the existing property and then the newer development.  She said whether the expectations they had were accurate or not, people still had certain expectations of what things were going to be like in their backyard and beyond.  She said the old adage was, “If you do not own the view, you do not really have any control over it”, yet it was a matter of balancing that it was your property and that was your view. 

She said she heard concerns about density, but if the bar was set at 12 units per acre and this development fell below that bar, she did not think it was right to turn something down on the density issue when they met the goal they had.  She said transitional zoning was always difficult as well as the buffering.  She said with the size of this piece of ground, it made it difficult. 

She said she was not concerned about stormwater because enough people had told the City Commission that stormwater issues would be better with detention in that area.  She said she was also not concerned about the Winthrop Court issue because she believed for safety purposes for the neighborhood, there had to be a secondary access into that area when that property developed.  She said she liked the idea of the crash gate and that it was not a connection to Stonecreek Drive.

She said her reservation was the one 8-plex.  She said her concern was that section of property was going from single family to an 8-plex, which was a big jump.  She said she was not an architect or a developer, and did not know if that could be changed and if there was a way to make that different so it was not such an abrupt change, even with the buffering of the landscaping.  She said if there was any way to make that happen, that would be her direction to the Planning Department, developers, and neighbors to try and transition that segment better. 

Commissioner Highberger said he visited that site and found it was very illustrative.  He said he appreciated Commissioner Rundle’s concern about adopting plans at the same time as zoning, but he thought if they were going to plan, get out ahead of development, and provide some sort of certainty to anyone developing property, zoning had to come ahead of the plan.  He said if the City Commission approved a zoning that was too dense, there was no rational way to beat that upper limit of that existing zoning.  He said they could change it. 

He said he still believed multi-family use was the correct use for that property.  He said he did not think they wanted 6^th Street lined with the back sides of cul-de-sacs.  

He said he was hoping for a little better transition when he approved this, but certainly he hesitated going against the vote of the Planning Commission, even though the person who voted against the preliminary development plan was the person he appointed to the Planning Commission.  He said he would still like to see a little more improvement to this development. 

He said he thought transitions could be handled better and similar transitions against single-family properties needed to be addressed.  He said it would make more sense to scale down buildings that immediately abut single family homes and a little higher density toward the north end by 6^th Street.  He said he understood all the work that had been done, but he would like to see better transitions on the southern edge of the property.

Mayor Amyx said this discussion was important in order to have an idea of where the City Commission was headed.  He said there was no reason to go through two public hearings if this item was returning to the Planning Commission.  He said if this item was returning to the Planning Commission, he asked what type of City Commission comments they would like to see for the Planning Commission to consider.  He said he heard Commissioner Highberger’s possible increase in density along 6^th Street and graduate the density along the southern portion of the property, but to understand that greater density was to the north and less to the south.  Vice Mayor Hack and Commissioner Schauner raised concerns about the 8-plex, and the consideration of the height of those buildings.

Commissioner Schauner said the larger landscaping to begin with would be a quick way to provide a better sense of differentiation between multifamily and single family residences and that might be true along the south and north edge as well.  He said he knew larger trees had a higher death rate on transplant and he knew it took those trees a lot longer to get established, but on balance, those trees provided better screening sooner than smaller trees.  He said he would also second Commissioner Highberger’s comments because those comments were consistent with his own views.

Mayor Amyx said he voted in favor of the zoning and believed the zoning, staff’s recommendation, and Planning Commission’s recommendation were all correct.  He said if there were ideas to make this a more compatible project between single family neighbors to the south and the new development to the north, he did not have a problem with taking a look at the development.   

Price Banks, attorney representing the neighbors, said a number of residents in the neighborhood were ready to discuss this issue and it was his impression those residents might have additional ideas for the Planning Commission to consider.  He said the issue was analyzed on the basis of the golden factors because they were dealing with land use relationships.  He said recently, a judge indicated that would be appropriate in a case that involved the City of Lawrence.  He said the neighbors thrust was to see the cul-de-sac, on the east side of the drainage way, with single family residences and the neighbors were willing to go along with 8-plexes on the west side of the drainage way. He said the neighborhood would accept the City Commission’s guidance on this issue, but thought the neighborhood could provide some meaningful input at this point.

Cory Lange, resident in the Stonecreek area, said the drawings presented, based on his observation, did not seem to scale.  He said the surrounding property was zoned as RS-2 that included a church, Branchwood area which was zoned PRD-1, and single-family which included another church.  He said he found it hard to see how it was approved.  He said City maps indicated the area was a cul-de-sac. He said the project had been going on for 18 months and asked how long it took to make it correct.

Mark O’Lear, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said in talking about how this conformed to Horizon 2020, Chapter 5, Residential Land Use, mentioned there should be appropriate transition zoning.  He said there should be transition from the housing and the neighborhood did not feel it provided the transition necessary to go from single-family to multi-family.  He said his neighbor, Lange, would be right next door to an apartment building, which did not seem like an appropriate transition. 

He said also, the design should be consistent with adopted neighborhood plans in developing the neighborhood concept of the area.  He said if looking at the planning unit concept, it matched well.  He said he was not sure how it was not appropriate to have single- family in that location when it appeared there was low density residential on all of those arterials.  He said if this plan was allowed to happen, it seemed the whole area would be encircled with multi-family and not what Horizon 2020 planned.    

He said it seemed there was minimal buffering. 

He said a number of the neighborhood’s concerns had not been addressed and were not listed as conditions.  He said one of the Planning Commissioners mentioned, in their July meeting, that there was a clear indication the project was in contradiction to Horizon 2020 which compelled the Planning Commission with the duty of mitigation.  He said two trees were added which would not follow Horizon 2020’s guidelines, but the clubhouse was moved which the neighborhood appreciated.  He said it did not seem those two issues would clear up the entire contradiction to Horizon 2020. 

He said when the neighborhood met with staff hoping to come up with a resolution, it was not resolved.  He said staff indicated that under the new code, if there was any problem, like a tree dying, the City would replant that tree.  He said he thought this plan was planned under the old code and therefore the new code would not apply and he would like to make sure the new code applied to this plan.   

Mike Wallis, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said this development would economically impact their property and not on a positive respect.  He said if there were two pieces of property, similar in value, when they were ready to sell their property, the other property would go first.  He said furthermore, they would be faced with the economic impact of having to put in fencing to buffer their property from the development.  He said they were already in discussions with the fence company.  He said they would have to put in trees and shrubbery to buffer their property from the development.  He said as far as he was concerned, this plan was something that could not be ignored.

Mayor Amyx said Wallis moved in his house in November of 2005 and asked if Wallis questioned that vacant property.

Wallis said yes.

Mayor Amyx asked if Wallis received an answer.  He said the decision on the zoning was made in August of 2005 and asked if Wallis had concerns about that zoning at that time.

Wallis said he did not have concern about the zoning, but had concern about the property.

Mayor Amyx asked if Wallis questioned the person who was involved in the purchase of that property. 

Wallis said yes.

Mayor Amyx asked if Wallis was assured that nothing bad would happen.

Wallis said yes.

Vice Mayor Hack asked Wallis what he was told.

Wallis said the impression they received was the area was single-family housing.

Mayor Amyx asked if Wallis questioned the zoning on that property at that time.

Wallis said no.

Mayor Amyx said Wallis had a large vacant field behind or across the street from their house adjacent to a major highway.  He said he was trying to figure out if Wallis questioned what that area might be, but it sounded like Wallis did.

Wallis said yes, but knowing what he knew now, they would not have bought the property.

Kevin Loos, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said he did not think any of the neighbors were expecting this area not to have some component of multi-family.  He said one concern was the transition of going from high end single-family straight into 8-plexes and from a planning standpoint, that did not make sense.  He said he knew the issues with duplexes and the issues of ownerships with duplexes could cause other problems and he was not saying duplexes were the right answer either, but there had to be some type of better density transition that went from $400,000 single-family homes to 8-plexes that could be rented by anybody.  He said it was a very odd transition for him to support.  He said the other piece which seemed odd was single-family residences on both sides of the street, one lot of duplexes, and a church.  He asked if that was consistent with the character of a neighborhood.  He said he would challenge there was a better alternative for that piece of land specifically on making that something compatible with the neighborhood.  He said there had to be something other than a building that was going to make developers money, and forget anyone else who lived in the neighborhood. 

He said with the transition, trees and berms were not appropriate and thought there had to be a better density transition.  He said he thought most of them would agree that at some time multi-family was probably the appropriate thing, but it was odd to pull that zoning onto Stonecreek Drive.  He said they needed to be more creative as architects and planners than to just plop duplexes, in that area, as the answer. 

Veronica Howard, Stonecreek Drive resident, said she bought her property in July 2004 from Stephens Real Estate.  Stephens Real Estate owned that vacant property and she was told that property was zoned single-family.  She said she learned a huge lesson and should have researched that information further.   

Shannon O’Lear, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said when they bought their house, they also asked about the vacant property, but did not trust her real estate agent fully and inquired as to who owned that vacant property.  She said she had a long conversation with the City’s Planning Department and was told although at that point it was still agricultural, most likely it would be single-family homes comparable to their own and the person assured them with 99% accuracy that was what would go behind their house.  She said it was a long battle to get that actualized to single-family behind their homes.  She said one of the questions they raised was why that was not one of the lower portion of the cul-de-sac.  She said they were a little nervous that as soon as this went through, they were going to try to rezone that area.  She said they had gotten very close to their neighbors throughout this whole issue, but they were not making money off of this.  She said those were their homes and took time away from their weekends and kids.  She said they wanted to know what was going to go back behind their houses to keep their minds at ease so they could go on with their lives and work.  

She said there was a very busy speed trap on 6^th Street and brought that issue up because she appreciated Commissioner Schauner’s comments about the density and size of those buildings.  She said they watched those speed traps with great frequency and having a large apartment, in that area, would dominate what they would be watching from their house. 

Another concern, although they were very grateful that the Planning Commission required a crash gate if Winthrop was to be developed as a secondary access point, was that crash gate might be a stepping stone to an open street, especially with KDOT’s CORSIM Study estimating 6^th Street would fail as a corridor because of the over congestion on that end of town.  She said when those tenants moved into those apartments they might want to eliminate the crash gate which would open up traffic to Stonecreek Drive.

She said they still had concerns about storm water ever since they built Stoneridge across the ditch.  She said that ditch flooded now during heavy rains, which was just coming off of straight land that could absorb a lot of water.  She said once they put 245 parking spaces in that area it would enhance the storm water issue.  She said she appreciated the detention ponds, but she was still a little uneasy about it.  She said she was also concerned about the quality of water because the run-off water from the parking lots would have mechanical waste which would come into her yard where her kids play. 

She said concerning Commissioner Highberger’s comment about fences backing onto 6^th because it was not attractive, but those were single- family homes, she asked if those homes could graded so those homes were not staring over 6^th.  She said they have an architectural solution to that steep grade and it seemed it could be applied to single family homes as well. 

She said the neighborhood was not against development and agreed that some multi-family was appropriate, but they wanted to maintain the quality of the neighborhood because they liked their homes and the people in that area.  She thanked the City Commission for zoning that area PRD-2 because that allowed their input and appreciated that opportunity.

Kent Fisher, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said he had attended each of the meetings throughout this process and like his neighbors, shared numerous concerns.  He said regardless of the outcome of this project, he asked the City Commission to require Winthrop Court be used only for emergency purposes only with a crash gate and with no possibility of that gate being opened in the future.  Regarding landscaping, he said the applicant had a very poor history and track record of landscaping.  He said for example, 27^th Street Aberdeen Apartments, their tree spacing was very sparse and many trees had died without proper use of irrigation.  He said the best example of landscaping in Lawrence was Tuckaway Apartments on 6^th Street.  He said there was a wide variety of trees and the density was very thick and lush.  He said he would be proud to have that on his own property.  He asked the City Commission to require dense planting and irrigation as part of the buffer zone between the neighborhood and this project.

Price Banks, Lawrence, said folks were beginning to wear out because this plan had been going on for so long.  He said their proposal was not new.  He said he remembered working with LandPlan to plan the area around Quail Run School.  He said the natural area now occupied by McGrew Nature Path was used as a transition between the more intense land uses to the southwest and the single-family home sites to the northeast which was done in many areas around town.  He said great care was taken in Alvamar West to attempt to avoid the shock factor that occurred.  He said what they were seeing was a shock factor where land adjacent to low density single-family homes was being developed with intense uses. 

He said when Eldorado was proposed at 15^th and Crossgate, the developer was required to provide the transition zone on the same subdivision.  The townhouses were adjacent to Crossgate and it transitioned to single-family before going over to Alvamar Estates.  The single-family homes along Colonial Court down near Clinton Parkway, not far from Wakarusa and Clinton Parkway, were buffered from the more intense uses along Wakarusa and even from the townhouses along Wakarusa by a natural area that included a drainage area.  The entire underlying purpose of the planning process was to improve and maintain the quality of life in the community.  He said when they had that kind of shock factor that was being proposed, it really flew in the face of that policy. 

He said Horizon 2020 stated that non-residential developments or intense developments should be developed in a planned manner with respect to adjacent uses that needed to be integrated in the surrounding neighborhood, which was not happening.  If the developer in this case were to provide his own transition and buffer instead of relying upon the neighbors to protect themselves somehow, they would have a much better situation.  He said the City Commission could provide that transition by requiring lower densities east of the drainage way.  He said they respectfully requested the City Commission send a message to the Planning Commission that east of the drainage way should be much lower density planned uses. 

Todd Thompson said he wanted to point out in the maps seen earlier, the area immediately to the south, which was now zoned single-family, was not to be single-family.  He said what he thought they had done was good planning.  He said they have moved the single-family and removed the peninsula on 6^th Street and made it part of the complex. 

He also addressed the adjacent issue.  He said Tuckaway Apartments was mentioned.  He said immediately to the west of Tuckaway Apartments and across the street from Brandon Woods were very expensive single-family homes.  He said he knew people tended to assume worst case scenario, but as someone who lived near a church and a dormitory, that did not necessarily determine the value of your property or the desirability of the neighborhood.

The landscaping would be on the berm which could be explained in detail if the Commission desired.  He said the landscaping would shield the house.  He said they had the one house that had any substantial border with this project. 

In discussing with Paul Patterson, Planner, on how they might both adopt some of what had been asked for and yet keep this plan on track, he said they would suggest a 6^th condition on the plan which would require the 8-plex to be replaced with two duplexes which would be a way in which this could move forward and have nothing but duplexes immediately adjacent to this one home.

He said that house, when they talked about scale, was a very large home.  He said compared to the short side of the 8-plex or to the duplex, those buildings were very comparable in size.  He said he did not think the compatibility issue was one of some giant structure towering over a neighboring, small residential home.   

He said based on the comments heard, he thought it was clear there would never be a plan that all of the neighbors liked.  He said he thought that was probably true in most projects, so they needed to move forward with this project because it had been on the burner a long time.  The Planning Commission had heard this plan many times and now the Planning Commission was happy with this plan.  He said if the City Commission were to add the condition that the one building immediately adjacent to the single-family home be replaced with duplexes, then this proposal would go forward, which was what they were asking the City Commission to do.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the ground immediately south of the four 8-plexes on the west parcel was going to be single-family residences.  He said if not, what was the proposed use.

Thompson said it was zoned single-family and it was the switch he was talking about.  He said that was owned by the same person and the owner believed they could deal with the screening because it was their own property.  More importantly, the multi-family complex would be there so that anyone buying the single-family lots would know in advance.  He said part of the deal was that a lot of folks were not as afraid of a multi-family complex being next door as others were.  He said he lived across the street from a dormitory so he had a lot of traffic and a lot of kids, but he also lived in a great neighborhood and it did not devalue his home.  He said they were quite confident that the single-family homes, when the market was ready, could be developed with presence of a multi-family complex.

Commissioner Schauner asked if someone could tell him what they had anticipated for the buffering screening for the residential property to the south of the west parcel.

Thompson said their client owned that same property and saw grading on that property, a bigger berm, and more trees.  He said they really had not gone to that much effort because they own that property. 

Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission was relatively comfortable with the plan to the west of the drainage area.

Commissioner Schauner said he was not.  He said he was at a house significantly south of the subject property and he heard from those neighbors a lot of concern about the amount of water coming south from 6^th.  He said he was not a storm water engineer, but what he heard the neighbors and others saying was that there was a huge amount of water that came down that water shed.  He asked Matt Bond, Stormwater Engineer about his comfort level about the drainage facilities making an improvement on the water run-off as compared with its current condition even with 245 parking spaces. 

Matt Bond, Stormwater Engineer, said the way it was designed was if it was single- family there would be no detention.  He said with multi-purpose the way it was planned now, it should not have any more run-off as if it was single-family right now.  He said the two detention ponds they provided meant that it would be the same run-off as if it were single family.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was going to be better than it was now with this development.  He said it seemed they only got one or two shots of making it better for people further downstream and he did not know if it was necessarily this property owner’s responsibility to fix downstream conditions.  He asked if the proposed property, with its detention ponds, makes it better downstream and not worse.

Bond said he did not think it would make it worse, but could not say it was going to make it any better because under the current guidelines, he was not putting anymore water than he was allowed downstream.  He said he could actually put more out than he was, according to the drainage study. 

Commissioner Highberger said he assumed Bond would review the bridge design before final approval.

Bond said yes.

Vice Mayor Hack asked if someone could elaborate on the berm if the sixth condition would be two duplexes.

Phil Struble, Landplan Engineering, said the drawing showed the density of the proposed landscaping.  He said it was probably three times the density of landscaping they usually did.  He said what came out in discussion was the cross section that made it look closer to Lange’s house. He said the cross section was deceptive at the angle that was cut, to show the buildings.

Vice Mayor Hack asked if that landscaping would be maintained by the property owner.

Struble said the property landscaping would be maintained by the development because it was totally on the development’s property.  He said none of the landscaping was on Lange’s property at all. 

Vice Mayor Hack said one of the questions that came up was the maintenance of the crash gate that would also be maintained by the development.

Struble said the crash gate would be maintained by the development.  He said he could not say the word “never”, but once the crash gate went up, there was no reason to go back and change it because all the people who were living in the apartments established their pattern of leaving.

Commissioner Schauner asked if those were all rental units on the east and west side of the development or where there some owned units.

Struble said it was his understanding those units were all rentals. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be a management agency.

Struble said a management agency would run the entire place.

Mayor Amyx asked if Struble anticipated the two bedroom units having small families.

Struble said typically those units rented to young professionals or small families looking to move to another location.  He said that was why they liked the one bedroom units because on a Friday night it would be relatively quiet compared to the three and four bedroom units.

Mayor Amyx said when talking about small families, he looked at open green space or playground areas, and if they were incorporated those types of things.

Struble said no, that was not the clientele those types of developments marketed to.  He said typically, there might be a student or small family in that type of environment.

Mayor Amyx asked what the City Commission was going to ask the Planning Commission to consider.

Commissioner Highberger said he would recommend to the Planning Commission to look at improving the transitions to the southern edge of the property.  He said beyond that, this plan could be left open for the applicant and the neighbors to work something out.

Vice Mayor Hack asked if the proposed sixth condition satisfied Commissioner Highberger’s concerns on the eastern side.

Commissioner Highberger said it might, but he did not think they could do a redesign by making one simple change.  He said he would like to see neighbor input and Planning Commission approval rather than snapping fingers, making one change, and it be okay.  He said he understood the applicant’s opinion about selling their lots to the south on the west side, but if it was rational to make a better transition on the east side, it seemed rational to him to look at the transition on the other side, too. He said the same concern would arise in the future although it would be easier if the apartments were built first.

He said for the record, his ideal neighborhood had a mix of units and arranging of housing, size, styles and incomes, but he was not sure that mix could be achieved with this plan.  He said duplexes near expensive homes did not bother him.  He said he loved to see mixed neighborhoods, but thought they could do a little bit better transitioning on the massing of some of those structures.

Commissioner Schauner said he concurred with Commissioner Highberger and thought Banks’ comments were well taken in terms of the transitioning issue on the south edge.  He said he was hearing that was the common thread running through the neighbors’ concerns.  He said the transition in his mind was different than buffering and the use transition rather than greenery or some other buffering issue.

He said the City Commission had a couple of those conversations in the past year and it seemed the beauty of this whole area was young families who cared enough about where they lived and it being the most important investment of their life, that they followed a process for 18 months and still come to a meeting on Tuesday night.  He said that was the strength of this process and strength of this City.  He said they were going to continue to have those types of disagreements, over time, unless everything was preplanned in advance and knew who your neighbors were going to be, which was not likely to happen.  He said he would like for the Planning Commission to read this transcript and take into account not just the summary attached to the report but the comments made.

Commissioner Rundle said one of the speakers spoke about the difficulty of compiling all of the concerns together.  He said he hoped that some effort could be made on the part of the neighbors to compile that information so the Planning Commission did have that information to accommodate as many concerns as possible. 

He said, at this point, it seemed the City Commission was pinned into a corner and was glad they were exercising some influence to try to mitigate the impact.  He said he hoped the Planning Commission was aware of what leeway they had in terms of improving the plan.

Mayor Amyx said the Planning Commission always had the ability to reaffirm the plan sent to the City Commission.  He said it was obvious in reviewing the minutes, the Planning Commission sent a piece of property to the City Commission with a positive recommendation for zoning and now sent a preliminary development plan with a 9 – 1 recommendation for approval.  He said it was apparent the City Commission was asking the Planning Commission to consider the southern end of this property and to look at increasing the density to the north to accommodate the compatible use that was to the south.

Commissioner Hack said issues of not having single families on that piece of property, stormwater issues, density, and the crash gate, were a given and had been considered and solved.  She said she would never support single family residences along 6^th Street because it was not a good transition.  She said she appreciated the sixth condition in changing the 8-plex to a duplex. 

She said she was willing to send the plan back to the Planning Commission, but had reservations as to whether or not the Planning Commission was any more able to design this plan and make it dense to the north and less dense to the south than the City Commission.  She said give that comment, she did not know what the City Commission would see when the plan came back, but was asking for a speedy turn around time in all fairness.  She said if they wanted to place a number of restrictions on this plan, those restrictions needed to happen two years ago as opposed to now.  She said transitions were easier when there was a larger piece of property, which this area clearly was not.  She said given that, she knew there were three votes to send the plan back and would join in on that vote, but was not sure they would see anything different when the plan came back.

Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to repeat what he said about the idea of having the preliminary development plan and zoning occur at the same time.  He said he picked up on the comment one of the neighbors made about being worn down coming back again and again to a process.  He said there were some communities that had this requirement and he had to admit (sarcastically) those communities were struggling to develop housing; had a declining population; had difficulty promoting economic environment; and were generally regarded as backwaters in this area regionally.  He said they were Olathe, Lenexa and Shawnee.  He said those were thriving communities that worked under those guidelines where the development plan came with the zoning application and he did not know why it could not work in Lawrence.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to send PDP-01-02-06, a Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th Street, back to the Planning Commission, along with the City Commission minutes from this meeting.  Aye:  Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay: Amyx.  Motion carried.