ITEM NO. 14: A TO PRD-2; 25.214 ACRES; NORTHWEST CORNER W. OF 6TH STREET AND FOLKS ROAD (BPD/BH)
Z-06-20-03: Consider rezoning of 25.214 acres and adjacent rights-of-way from A (Agricultural) District to PRD-2 with restrictions (Planned Residential) District. The property is located at the northwest corner of W. 6th Street and Folks Road. Carolena Ltd and Henrysflower LLC are the property owners of record. Initiated by the City Commission on June 3, 2003.
Student Commissioner Bittenbender was recused.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Dyer introduced the Item, a rezoning initiated by the City Commission in part to address concern about the potential development of the property. The subject area was no longer appropriate for agricultural uses based on surrounding uses.
Mr. Dyer outlined the uses allowed in the proposed PRD-2 zoning district and noted the concern of the City and Planning Commissions about strip development of office uses between the commercial centers on 6th Street.
The proposed rezoning conformed to the Area Plan and the Comprehensive Plan and would allow for public & civic institutions was well as service uses for the residents of the PRD area. It would further provide good transitioning between higher and lower intensity uses.
Staff recommended a cap in the residential sections of 15 dwelling units per acre.
It was verified that Champion Lane was platted to connect to the north and a roundabout was planned at Overland Drive.
The Commission agreed to complete Items 14 & 15 at this meeting, then recess. The rest of the agenda would be dealt with at a meeting extension scheduled for March 3, 2004, 7:30 a.m. (in place of the March Mid-Month meeting). It was verified there would be a quorum at this meeting.
As a related parcel, Item 15 was pulled into simultaneous consideration with Item 14 at this point.
ITEM NO. 15: A TO PCD-2 (W/RESTRICTIONS); 18.938 ACRES; NORTHEAST CORNER W. OF 6TH STREET AND WAKARUSA DRIVE (BPD)
Z-06-19-03: Consider rezoning of 18.938 acres and adjacent rights-of-way from A (Agricultural) District to PCD-2 with restrictions (Planned Commercial) District. The property is located at the northeast corner of W. 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive. Carolena Ltd and Henrysflower LLC are the property owners of record. Initiated by the City Commission on June 3, 2003.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Dyer said the City Commission initiated this rezoning to limit building sizes, the total amount of commercial square footage and further restrict allowable uses on the subject property.
PROPERTY OWNER PRESENTATION
Mike
Treanor, Treanor Architects, spoke as a member of the partnership that had a
contract to purchase the subject property. He gave background information on
his architectural firm, showing examples of previous projects and explaining
the company’s goals and principles.
Mr. Treanor then presented a multi-zoning, mixed-use development concept plan. It was noted that the Commission could not consider this plan because it had not yet been formally submitted and therefore had not been reviewed by Staff.
The Commission agreed unanimously to extend the meeting until Items 14 & 15 were complete.
Bill Fleming, Barber & Emerson, asked the Commission to consider removing or modifying the condition stating no building permits would be issued until intersection improvements were complete. He suggested the condition could be changed to hold the issuance of occupancy permits, rather than building permits, or clarified that infrastructure improvements could begin. Mr. Fleming understood the access concerns behind the condition but thought other accesses were possible until Champion Lane was usable.
It was noted that allowing building permits in other cases had resulted in pressure to permit occupancy when buildings were complete before the road improvements.
Mr. Treanor was asked to comment on the issues at hand, noting the project he had introduced was larger than would be allowed by the zoning being considered.
Mr. Treanor said it would be possible to work with the City Commission’s guidelines on the amount of commercial space because the development proposal contained uses other than commercial, but the zoning boundaries being considered would not work with his concept plan. Mr. Treanor asked if the rezonings could be deferred until he could submit a revised plan. It was discussed that approval of today’s rezonings would not prohibit the submission of an alternate zoning request that would accommodate the plan.
PUBLIC HEARING
Marilyn Bittenbender spoke on behalf of the property owners. These parties supported the concept plan and encouraged flexibility to allow a combination residential and office uses on the eastern tract.
Ms. Bittenbender’s clients also requested the Commission remove the proposed use restrictions at this time to allow the property owner to explore possible uses. She gave the example of an optometrist’s office as a use that would be suitable for the area but was not allowed per the proposed use restrictions.
Alan Cowles, President of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said the neighborhood’s traffic concerns expressed for previous issues were valid here as well. He did not support the “open-ended request” that could generate an unknown amount of additional traffic on 6th Street.
He said piecemeal treatment of 6th Street would result in a similar undesirable situation like 23rd Street.
Mary Woveton, Managing Director of the Lawrence Community Theatre, explained the theatre had outgrown its current location and was discussing possibly relocating to the development introduced by Mr. Treanor.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff pointed out that, although optical sales were included in the restricted uses, an optician would be able to sell them out of his own office as an accessory use.
There were no closing comments from the property owners’ representative.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was suggested the Commission deny both Item 14 & 15. This would make the Items “go away” until the property owner came forward with their formal proposal. Leaving the land zoned agriculturally provided assurance the land would remain in its current state for the time being.
Staff stated this could be an option to leave the area as a “clean slate” for Mr. Treanor to begin with, while fulfilling the City Commission’s direction for action on these Items.
The Commission discussed the implications of tabling or deferring vs. denial. It was clarifed that, in Staff’s opinion, the potential plan dicussed by Mr. Treanor would meet the substantial change crieria to allow for submission of another rezoning after a denied zoning on the same land.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 14
Motioned by Comm. Lawson and seconded to deny the request to rezone 25.214 acres from A to PRD-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the following findings of fact:
1. The Planning Commission has a precedent of not approving PRD zoning without accompanying plans and feels it would be premature to do so in this case; and
2. The road network, existing neighborhoods and schools made the area sensitive and needful of careful scrutiny.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Item 15
Motioned by Comm. Lawson and seconded to deny the rezoning of 18.938 acres from A to PCD-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the following findings of fact:
1. The Planning Commission has a precedent of not approving PCD zoning without accompanying plans and feels it would be premature to do so in this case; and
2. The road network, existing neighborhoods and schools made this area sensitive and needful of careful scrutiny.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Schachter explained he would vote for the motion but for alternative reasons. He had opposed the area plan when it was approved, feeling this was too much commercial space.
The property owner was encouraged to work with Staff about shopping center design, since the proposal introduced tonight did not meet the standards the Commission would be looking for when the plan was formally considered.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to deny the request to rezone 18.938 acres from A to PCD-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the following findings of fact:
1. The Planning Commission has a precedent of not approving PCD zoning without accompanying plans and feels it would be premature to do so in this case; and
2. The road network, existing neighborhoods and schools made the area sensitive and needful of careful scrutiny.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.