PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT

Regular Agenda – Public Hearing Item

 

PC Staff Report

02/25/08

ITEM NO. 4:      RSO TO RM15; 15.171 ACRES 9 ACRES; 4000 W 24TH PLACE (SLD)

 

Z-10-26-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 15.171 acres 9 acres from RSO (Single-Dwelling Residential-Office) to RM15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential). The property is located at 4000 West 24th Place, Inverness Park Addition, west of Crossgate Drive & south of Clinton Parkway. Submitted by Highland Construction, Inc., for Dial Realty Corp., property owner of record.

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request [Z-10-26-07] for 15.171 9 acres from RSO (Single-Dwelling Residential-Office) to RM15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential)and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report.

 

Applicant’s reason for request:     

“For development to build market rate affordable housing.” 

 

Due to an error in publication the proposed rezoning must be reheard to meet minimum statutory requirements. The correct notice area was completed for the previous consideration on January 28, 2008. Additionally the map prepared for the previous staff report accurately depicted the correct area. However, the area advertised and described in the staff report was for 9 acres rather than the proposed 15.171 acres. Therefore a new public hearing has been scheduled.

KEY POINTS

·         This property had been included in an earlier rezoning request upon annexation of 160 acres known as the Getto property (Inverness Park Addition).

·         Use Permitted upon Review for a retirement center including subject property (UPR-09-04-07).

 

GOLDEN FACTORS TO CONSIDER

CHARACTER OF THE AREA

  • Subject property is located on boundary of the Inverness Park and Sunflower Park Subdivision area. The area south of Clinton Parkway and north of 24th Place is undeveloped and zoned for multi-family development.

 

CONFORMANCE WITH HORIZON 2020

·         The proposed request is consistent with the general principles of Horizon 2020 as identified.

 

ASSOCIATED CASES/OTHER ACTION REQUIRED

ANNEXATION

·         A-4-4-99; 163.46 acres

REZONING

·         Z-4-10-99; A to RO-1B; 17.738 acres of original tract

PLATTING

·         Anticipated replat of property to align zoning and subdivision boundaries to reflect the project boundary.

·         Current platted property known as Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 1

·         PF-09-29-04, a Final Plat for Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 5, a replat of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block One, Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 1. [Expired, conditions not met, document not recorded]

 

Development

  • UPR-09-09-04; The Fountains [Expired, conditions not met]
  • B-09-25-04; variance from building height and required parking associated with UPR.
  • Site plan required for development

 

PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING

·         No public comment has been received prior to the printing of this staff report.

 

GENERAL INFORMATION

 

 

Current Zoning and Land Use:

 

RSO (Single-Dwelling Residential Office) District; undeveloped land.

 

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

RM12 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) District to the north; Bishop Seabury Academy and apartment development.

 

RSO (single-dwelling Residential Office) District to the east and west; undeveloped land.

 

PRD [The Legends, Phase 1 and Phase 2]; developing multi-family university oriented housing. Phase 2 is approved but not constructed.

 

 

I.  CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Applicant’s Response:

  “The ground should be commercial or high density residential. This application is for medium density.”

 

Horizon 2020 recognizes the need to provide a variety of housing opportunities through a specific policy found in Chapter Five, Residential Land Use. 

 

Chapter Five – Residential Land Use

Residential Land Use Goals and Policies

Medium- and Higher-Density Residential Land Use

 

“Policy 2.7(b): Encourage the use of a variety of housing types, including town homes, patio homes, zero lot line homes, cluster housing, garden apartments and retirement housing.”

 

Additional policies address compatibility with surrounding land uses and adequate vehicular circulation within developments.

 

Staff Finding – The proposed request is consistent with the general principles of Horizon 2020 as identified.

 

II.         ZONING AND USE OF NEARBY PROPERTY, INCLUDING OVERLAY ZONING

 

Staff Finding -- There are a variety of zoning districts and uses in this area. The subject property is zoned RSO, a mixed residential/office district that is restricted to single-family residences and office uses.

 

III.   CHARACTER OF THE AREA

 

The subject property is located on the south side of Clinton Parkway (a designated arterial street) and on the north side of 24th Place, a designated local street. Inverness Drive to the west and Crossgate Drive to the east are both collector streets. The subject property is not located within an established “neighborhood boundary” but is located near Sunflower Elementary School to the southwest. Area to the south is developed with multi-family university-related housing with a second phase approved, but not constructed.

 

Staff Finding -- The subject property is located in proximity to several existing and developing residential subdivisions. Lower density residential development is located to the east and west of the subject property. The property also abuts the Legends at KU, an apartment complex zoned as a planned unit development. The area has a mixed character with uses including high-intensity residential development attached town homes and detached single family dwellings.

 

IV.       PLANS FOR THE AREA OR NEIGHBORHOOD, AS REFLECTED IN ADOPTED AREA AND/OR SECTOR PLANS INCLUDING THE PROPERTY OR ADJOINING PROPERTY

 

Staff Finding -- The subject property is not part of a designated neighborhood for which there is an adopted area or sector plan. The guiding document for this property is Horizon 2020. The property abuts an arterial street to the north and the general area is between two collector streets. Access to the property will be limited to the local street on the south side. These types of areas are noted to be suitable for more intensive development.

 

V.     SUITABILITY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING REGULATIONS

 

Applicant’s response:

“There is too much office ground and not enough demand. There are many senior oriented developments in the pipeline also.”

 

The subject property is zoned RSO under the Land Development code which restricts the residential element to single-dwelling detached, cluster dwelling, and duplex dwelling options. The RSO district was established as a result of the conversion of the previous RO1B zoning that allowed both single-dwelling and multi-dwelling up to a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre.

 

The purpose of the RSO district is to accommodate low to medium intensity administrative and professional offices that are compatible with the character of low and medium-density residential neighborhoods. It is also intended to be used as a transitional zoning district between higher intensity commercial areas and residential neighborhoods (Section 20-203).  The RM districts are intended to accommodate multi-dwelling housing. The multi-dwelling residential districts allow the creation and maintenance and portion of higher density housing opportunities in areas with good transportation access. The RM15 district has a corresponding Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density limited to 15 dwelling units per acre; where as the RSO district has a corresponding Comprehensive Plan Designation of low or medium density reflecting its flexible design.

 

Staff Finding -- Development of detached housing in this location will be disconnected from similar housing in the surrounding area. Attached housing as an option in the RSO district requires individual lots. The subject property would be required to be replatted for individual lots. Office use is limited to not more than 5,000 GSF in the RSO district and would be better suited at the corners of the area along Clinton Parkway than the center portion of the subject property. Approval of the request reinstates the previous multi-family allowance with a slightly higher maximum density. Regardless of the change in zoning, development will require site plan approval prior to building.

 

VI.    LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED

 

Applicant’s Response:

          “Since it was annexed.”

 

Staff Finding – The subject property is undeveloped. The property is part of a larger tract that was annexed and rezoned in 1999 in anticipation of development. The southern portions of the original acreage have been developed with detached and duplex residential uses. The central portion of the subject property has been preliminarily graded as part of development activities in the area.  

 

VII.  EXTENT TO WHICH APPROVING THE REZONING WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTIES

 

Applicant’s response:

“None. Traffic calming devices are in place and being paid for thru specials. Similarly dense usage is already allowed on property. ”

 

The applicant is requesting that approximately 15.171 acres 9 acres of land be rezoned to RM15. The subject property abuts an existing arterial street (Clinton Parkway) and is located across from an existing multi-dwelling residential development. Both the existing RSO and the proposed RM15 districts allow a maximum residential development density of 15 dwelling units per acre. No detrimental affect is anticipated on nearby properties. The proposed change will allow a different type of development pattern that the current zoning allows.

 

Staff Finding – Approval of the request will allow for a different development pattern while maintaining the same base density. Approval of the request also eliminates non-residential uses as a development option. 

 

VIII.               RELATIVE GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BY THE DESTRUCTION OF THE VALUE OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS

 

Applicant’s response:

       “Brand new affordable, market rate housing. Paying over $100,000 a year in special assessments without development potential is a hardship for owner.”

 

Staff Finding -- Approving the rezoning request would not alter existing benefit to the public health and welfare.

 

STAFF REVIEW

The subject property is a portion of a larger 160 acre tract originally annexed and zoned in 1999. The property was later platted with large tracts along Clinton Parkway. The area along Clinton Parkway was zoned for the most intensive development as part of the consideration of the 160 acres in 1999. The area south of 24th Street but north of the open space/drainage area was designated as the transition area to the lower density, detached residential home lots to the south. Approval of the request is consistent with the original action of allowing medium density residential development to occur along the arterial street.

 

In 2004 the subject property was part of a development request known as the Fountains Retirement Center; a multi-lot, multi-phased development intended to provide a variety of housing options (independent and assisted living, skilled nursing, dementia care, and two-unit villas) for senior citizens in Lawrence (UPR-09-09-04). Development was anticipated for this project to be phased and completed by 2011. A final plat was also associated with this proposed development that was not recorded but established lots based on the phases of the development. The total development area of the project was approximately 22 acres. The subject property of this request represents the central portion of the previous development request.

 

On January 28, 2008, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the requested rezoning. Following the hearing, staff identified an error in the description of the total size of the request and determined that the request should be re-advertised and reconsidered by the Planning Commission prior to consideration on a City Commission agenda.

 

Development of the property will require site plan approval and compliance with the current Land Development Code.  The subject property is anticipated to be replatted to align the zoning and subdivision boundaries with the project boundaries. A minor subdivision would be submitted to complete this task.