Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning and Development Services

TO:	David L. Corliss, City Manager
FROM:	Mary Miller, Current Planner
CC:	Scott McCullough, Planning and Development Services Director Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director
Date:	For January 15, 2013 meeting
RE:	CPA-4-2-12: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create CC600 District policies and revise area plans to designate the node of 6^th Street and K-10 as a CC600. TA-4-3-12: Text amendment to the Development Code establishing the CC 600 District. Z-4-5-12: Rezoning request for approximately 146 acres located in the NW quadrant of the intersection of West 6^th Street/Hwy 40 and Kansas Hwy 10 (K-10) from County A (Agriculture) District and County B1 (Neighborhood Business) District to the pending City of Lawrence District CC600 (Community Commercial) District.

Background:

· CPA-4-2-12: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Chapter 6 of Horizon 2020 to create CC600 District policies and to Chapter 14 Specific Plans, to revise the West of K-10 Plan and A Nodal Plan for the Intersection of West 6th Street & Kansas Highway 10 (K-10) designating the node of 6th Street and K-10 as a CC600.

· TA-4-3-12: Text Amendment to the City of Lawrence Land Development Code, Articles 1, 2 and 13, to provide for a CC600 (Community Commercial) District. 

· Z-4-5-12: Rezoning Request for 146 acres located in the NW quadrant of the intersection of West 6^th Street/Hwy 40 and Kansas Hwy 10 (K-10) from County A (Agriculture) District and County B1 (Neighborhood Business) District to the pending City of Lawrence District CC600 (Community Commercial) District.

The items listed above were considered together by the City and Planning Commissions.

4/10/12        Items were initiated by City Commission.

5/21/12        Planning Commission forwarded the items to City Commission with recommendation for approval. (7-1-1 vote)

7/11/12        County Commission approved CPA-4-2-12 (3-0 vote).

8/21/12        City Commission deferred the items. (Unanimous vote)

9/4/12         City Commission deferred the items. (Unanimous vote)

9/17/12        KU Endowment submitted a letter to the Lawrence City Commission regarding their purchase of land in the NE quadrant of the 6^th and K-10 node with the purpose of locating athletic facilities on the site and invited the City to locate their proposed recreational center on that site as well.

9/18/12        City Commission withdrew the applications. (4-1 vote)

9/25/12        City Commission rescinded their previous vote to withdraw the applications and remanded the items back to Planning Commission for review with the following specific direction: “Given the change in circumstance that the regional recreation center/sports village is no longer planned for the Gateway Addition property west of K-10, the City Commission has not approved or dis-approved the applications and directs the Planning Commission to review the comprehensive plan, text amendment and rezoning applications in light of the change in circumstance of the original recreation center/sports village relocating to a property east of K-10.” (Unanimous vote)

Planning Commission Action on Remanded Items

The Planning Commission discussed the remanded items at their October 24, 2012 meeting in regards to their previous recommendation and the fact that the sports village was being planned on property east of K-10 and adjacent to the commercial node, as directed by the City Commission. The following actions were taken as a result of this discussion:

CPA-4-2-12:

Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to establish CC600 policies in Chapter 6 of Horizon 2020, but to delete the revisions to the area plans designating the 6^th St/Hwy 40 and K-10 intersection as a CC600 node. (Unanimous vote)

The Planning Commission authorized the Chair to sign PC Resolution PCR-5-4-12 and repealed the previous resolution. (Unanimous vote)

TA-4-3-12:         

Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Text Amendment to the Land Development Code to establish a CC600 District. (Unanimous vote)

Z-4-5-12:

Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning request to CC600 to the CC. (4-3 vote)

The PC actions in October effectively recommended establishing CC600 policies in Horizon 2020 and creating the accompanying zoning district, but not employing them at the 6^th and K-10 node and not rezoning the subject 146 acres to the CC600 district.  Several PC members concurred that the facts had changed enough to warrant further review of the land use designations for the node.  There was also frustration by several PC members related to a state law that effectively required that the PC deliver a recommendation to the City Commission following the October PC meeting.  Inaction by the PC would have resulted in resubmission of the PC’s original recommendation for approval of the items.  The PC generally indicated that changes to the node would be appropriate, potentially even revising the node to a CC600, but even with near unanimous public support for the nodal changes, the PC was not comfortable with its options of taking no action or submitting the same recommendation of approval as they desired more time than the state law provides to review the direction of the City Commission.

At their regular meeting on November 12, 2012, the PC further discussed the process, but not the specific applications, and their frustration with the limited time to consider the City Commission’s direction.  The PC adopted the following motion by a 5-4 vote:

Motioned by Commissioner Hird, seconded by Commissioner Culver, that the Planning Director submit to the City Commission a request to have the items related to the CC600 issues heard at the October Planning Commission meeting returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration with more than one meeting to consider the items, if needed. If the City Commission returns the items, the Planning Commission requested deeper analysis by staff on the land use options.

Discussion:

Since the PC considered the items in October, the sports village received its land use approvals (zoning and SUP) from the City Commission in January 2013.  There is every indication that KU will move forward with their facilities and the City Commission is scheduled to make a final determination on moving forward with the city’s recreation center in February.

This is new information to the discussion, as the sports village project did not have its land use approvals last October.  It would serve the commercial node well to ask the PC to review the nodal plan in light of these facts and given their desire to have it returned to them.  The owner of the 146 acres to the west of K-10 desires that the land use applications remain active during the review of the node since withdrawing or denying them would result in a 12 month waiting period before a new application could be resubmitted.

The state law in question reads:

“If the planning commission fails to deliver its recommendation to the governing body following the planning commission's next regular meeting after receipt of the governing body's report, the governing body shall consider such course of inaction on the part of the planning commission as a resubmission of the original recommendation and proceed accordingly.”

The value of the law, in staff’s opinion, is to provide rezoning applicants and surrounding owners a process whereby there is no unreasonable delay in the decision rendered on a request to rezone specific property.  Even while most stakeholders would likely appreciate the opportunity for the PC to review the nodal land use designations at more than one meeting, staff believes the state law needs to be adhered to and will work toward that end with the PC if the applications are returned to them.

Staff believes that progress can be made on the review of the node in short order.  While the sports village has been relocated east of K-10, most of the assumptions that supported the CC600 designation remain.  To comply with state law and satisfy the PC’s desire to more fully review the issues, if returned to them, staff will present a more complete analysis of the possibilities at the node and advise the PC that they remain under the framework of the state law in their deliberations.  If returned, the PC would consider the applications at their February meeting.

Possible Actions:

Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-4-2-12:

• Approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as originally drafted and presented at the May PC Meeting, which establishes the CC600 policies in H2020 and at the 6^th St./K-10 node.
• Approve the revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment recommended by the PC at their October PC meeting, which would establish CC600 policies in H2020, but would not designate the 6^th St./K-10 node as a CC600.
• Return the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Planning Commission for further review of appropriate locations for the CC600 District as requested by the PC at their November meeting stating the reasons for failure to approve or disapprove and providing specific further direction for the PC to consider.
• Deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
• Withdraw the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

Text Amendment TA-4-3-12:

• Approve the text amendment as recommended by the PC at their May and October meetings.
• Approve the text amendment with modifications.
• Return the text amendment to the PC for further consideration, stating the reasons for failure to approve or disapprove and providing specific further direction for the PC to consider.
• Deny the text amendment.
• Withdraw the text amendment.

Rezoning Request Z-4-5-12:

• Approve the Rezoning request. (super majority vote (4/5) required due to valid protest petition)
• Return the Rezoning request to the Planning Commission for further review as requested by the PC at their November meeting stating the reasons for failure to approve or disapprove and providing specific further direction for the PC to consider.
• Deny the Rezoning Request.  (Per Section 20-1303(j)(2), a successive application shall not be accepted for a period of 12 months from the date of CC denial unless a successive application is substantially different from the original application that was denied.  It is Staff’s opinion that a change in applicant does not qualify as a substantially different application.  A substantially different application shall not be accepted until 120 days after the date of denial.) 
• Withdraw the Rezoning Request.  (Per Section 20-1303(j)(1), withdrawal of an original application after it has been advertised for public hearing shall constitute denial of the application as if the public hearing had been held and concluded.  If withdrawn, the same criteria for submitting a successive application within 12 months and 120 days apply.)

Staff Recommendations

1. Return the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Planning Commission for further review of appropriate locations for the CC600 District as requested by the PC at their November meeting.
2. Return the text amendment to the PC for further consideration, citing specific comments to discuss.
3. Return the Rezoning request to the Planning Commission for further review as requested by the PC at their November meeting.

Note: If returned to the PC, the items would be scheduled for the February regular meeting.