Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning requests, and authorizing the drafting of ordinances for placement on a future agenda:

Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report on the rezoning requests for property that is generally located south of West 6^th Street between K-10 Highway.  She said those requests originally came to the Commission a year ago and at that time the City Commission directed staff to go back and look at the entire intersection to include all 4 corners in its evaluation for land use considerations and recommendations.  She said as a current Planner, she appreciated that process greatly because it allowed the opportunity to have other staff members to look at that area and validate the work she had done approximately one year ago to see if it was still appropriate in its recommendations.  The nodal plan was considered by the Commission last week. 

The request included a single-family zoning district on the southern portion of the properties which was 6^th Street along the northern side and George Williams Way extended up to the eastern leg of this property.  Included in that request were single-family, RM-1 which was a multi-family district, residential office district, RM-2 which was another multi-family district, and then the frontage along West 6^th Street was proposed for PCD-2 or planned commercial development.   

She said when staff looked at those request, they also had a preliminary plat that was looked at for the entire property which laid out the individual lots, street and road configurations, as well as some of the easements in limitation of that property.  She said they were able to look at that property in the context of its various pieces as well as its relationship to the adjacent properties. Staff also knew that they could easily extend municipal services to cover this property.  She said this was a compellation that accompanied the request that was provided by the applicant that showed the different pieces and the street configuration which was the RM-1, RO, RM-2, and PCD requests. 

The recommendations forwarded to the City Commission from the Planning Commissioner were all affirmative recommendations for approval.  There were unanimous recommendations for the residential and residential office pieces and a split vote on the planned commercial piece.  That went back to the fact that the applicant only provided a preliminary plat and not a preliminary development plan.  Staff’s recommendations for approval of those properties was specific to require approval of a final plat to be recorded, prior to publication of the zoning which allowed staff to make sure all of the boundaries match up and to make sure all of those lot configurations were appropriate to what the zoning request was. 

The PCD portion which came to the City Commission with a split vote for recommendation was conditioned on provision and approval of a preliminary development plan which would go back to the City Commission as well as a final plat.  There were lots of conversations with the applicant about access, obviously direct access to 6^th Street was prohibited and certainly access to George Williams Way would also be substantially limited through that platting process.                        

Highberger asked how many tracts the Commission was being asked to approve.

Day said there should be five tracts.  She said it appeared that the RS-2 request which was the southern most part was missing.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the Commission was being asked to review that fifth item as well.

Wildgen said it was not on the agenda and would need to come back to the City Commission.

The City Commission acknowledged that a fifth rezoning request had inadvertently been left off of the agenda.    

Day said the preliminary plat was something that the Commission has not seen and typically it would not come before the City Commission.  She said the Commission would see it as a final plat when the applicant gets through that part of the process and that would establish a series of streets.  She said the street configuration changed slightly to the interior in that configuration.  There was a major utility easement bisecting that commercial piece and there would be a lot of drainage easement dedications as they see that property platted.  

Commissioner Schauner asked, to the west of what was proposed to be RS zoning, if there was outlet to the west from that developed area.

Day said that was the SLT and there would be no connection of that property back to the SLT.  Ultimately, they would need to look at providing access back through that development in appropriate locations.  She said it would ultimately have access back to the south toward 15^th Street.  Staff did not have plats on those properties so staff looked at those properties conceptually.  She said those were certainly elements staff was aware of and they had been making sure as the properties were developed that they had adequate opportunities to provide street and specific pedestrian connections.        

Commissioner Schauner asked if there had been a zoning request for that property.

Day said the Planning Commission initiated a change in zoning for that property. Staff did not do as good as job as they should have in terms of contacting that property owner proactively so that initial conversation was somewhat stressed.  A lot of that activity was deferred when the action was postponed and they pursued the nodal plan.  She said staff thought it was appropriate to initiate zoning so that they did not end up with a mismatch based on what actions the City Commission took on that property.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a proposed zoning change.

Day said staff recommended single-family zoning.

Commissioner Hack asked if the Diamond Head Development area map included the entire area.

Day said yes.  That was the map that staff used to talk about how that property related to the overall area and to look at how they might extend streets. 

Commissioner Hack asked if the diagram for road connections to the west of that property were thoughts about how to connect those roads.

Day said yes.

Commissioner Hack asked if there were 3 access points to George Williams Way, no access to 6^th Street and no access to Harvard Road except at the intersection of Harvard.          

Commissioner Schauner asked if the County had acted upon the nodal plan for that intersection.

Day said it was her understanding that the County had not acted on the nodal plan. 

Finger said that issue was on the County Commission’s agenda on Monday and no action was taken other than to receive the document they had.   They did not accept to take an affirmative action because they wanted to discuss several different items.  She said the County Commission had requested a joint meeting between the City and County to talk about several different issues and that was one of the issues they had questions about. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if commercial allocation at that intersection was one of the issues.

Finger said that issue came up in their discussions.  She said the County Commission was interested why there wasn’t any on the incorporated portions.  She said their interest was not within the City, but within the western two quadrants of the nodal area.   

Commissioner Schauner said the nodal plan restricted commercial space development on all four corners, at least, conceptually.   

Finger said the nodal plan restricted commercial development at that node to two corners on the east side.

Commissioner Schauner asked if that would ultimately prove to be achievable or not since the City did not have any kind of County buy in to that concept.    

Finger said the only thing staff new, at this point, was that for it to be developed within the City or incorporated boundaries it would be restricted to those two corners.

Commissioner Schauner asked “if” and “when” the west side of that intersection was annexed, the City would be faced with property owners having an interest in the highest and best use for their ground.

Finger said once the property was annexed, the property would come under the adopted plan that the Commission adopted last week.  The expectation hopefully would not be different once the two bodies meet and discuss that issue.  The other complication for the County Commission was that they had not received a presentation or discussed the commercial chapter and the reason for that was because they were trying to take one item at a time, rather than too many different items.  She said the County was dealing with the urban growth boundary which they hoped to finalize tomorrow. 

Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.      

Vernon Jarboe, Attorney, spoke on behalf of the applicant Diamond Head LP.   This was one of those rare opportunities where there was approximately 100 acres of land that a single developer had put together a comprehensive concept.  The concept of the nodal plan in waiting for the development of the nodal plan actually came about when their project came before the Commission the first time.  He said this project had been tabled waiting on the nodal plan and its development.   He said they saw that development as a model community that was initiated about 3 years ago by Diamondhead when they first starting working on development concepts and did involve elements of office, multi-family, single-family, and commercial development.  Both the staff and the Planning Commission had reviewed the plan in multiple phases because they had the preliminary plat, they had been through the zoning process with the Planning Commission and back through the Planning Commission with the nodal plan.     

He said as staff pointed out, the Commission needed to think about the fact that before the PCD development actually occurred there would need to be a preliminary and final plan with actual uses shown.  Even though the plan had already been reviewed, it would be subject to Commission review in the future.

He said another important element was that particular piece of property that was annexed into the City was included in a sewer benefit district.  The owner had a year or two to pay off those sewer benefit costs to bring sewers into the vicinity of those properties.  He said unlike some of the other properties on the west side of the SLT that property had public utilities already. 

In addition, George Williams Way on the east side of their property and City staff was interested that area extended north to 6^th Street so that it was ready to go when 6^th Street was finally finished.   The developer was willing to dedicate the right-of-way as a part of that plat and the preliminary plat had already been submitted and approved.  He said they would like to see the actual street plans so they would know how it affected the property, but conceptually they were in agreement with the 4 points of access that staff discussed.  He said they also agreed to comply with the other suggestions that came about as a part of that preliminary plat in terms of staff’s requirements.

He said another important issue was that this plan had found to be in general conformity with Horizon 2020 and the nodal plan so that they were not proposing something that was different.  The project was supported by the Planning Commission in each of those 5 rezoning request.  He said they thought the reason for that support was because they had incorporated the buffering concepts and transitional uses.  He asked the Commission for their support on those proposed rezoning request.

Commissioner Highberger asked about the PCD.  He asked about the approximate retail square footage projected for that area.

Jarboe said the amount of square footage would be hard to tell at this time.  He said it would depend on the users.  He said the zoning request was for approximately 32 acres, but when backing out all of the areas that could not be used, there were only 20 or 21 acres left.

Commissioner Highberger applauded staff and Diamond Head LP for their efforts. He said they had taken steps toward working with issues such as pedestrian, connectivity, integration with surrounding areas that had not been platted yet. 

He said his only concern was with the PCD because he wanted a better idea of the specific uses.

Commissioner Rundle asked about Policy 1.7 in Horizon 2020 that asked for some assessment of commercial rezoning against existing rezoning.   He asked if the Commission gave a consensus on still wanting that policy in the Commercial Chapter.

Finger said the tool for assessing market evaluation was in the document that the City Commission approved for Chapter 6.  She said there was a matrix and method proposed.  Staff had not carried that on since that document had not been adopted and published.

Commissioner Rundle asked if the City Commission would need to give staff instruction or approve that method.

Finger said when that was adopted and published then that matrix was what staff would use, unless the City Commission wanted staff to use something else.  That language that said they should use a marketing tool, was still in Horizon 2020, Chapter 6, but the actual tool that staff would use was also provided in the revisions to Chapter 6 and that was what staff anticipated in using.

Mayor Dunfield asked if Chapter 6 had been through the final adoption, would that Chapter had feed into that rezoning application.

Finger said Chapter 6 had gone through public hearings and reviews.  If Chapter 6 was in place, prior to this request, then staff would have done what they could, but they did not have square footage.  She said when the Commission would see those proposed codes, they would see reconnection of the zoning with the development plans for commercial area.

Mayor Dunfield asked in the proposed chapter, did the market analysis come into play at the stage of zoning or after the zoning.

Finger said after the zoning because they would not have square footages until they had a site plan or development plan.

Commissioner Hack said that would become a check on the rezoning requests.  She said it could be rezoned, but then the check like the use of square footage for commercial property then the Commission would have the opportunity to look at that at a later date.

Finger said correct.  She said staff could do the overview approach which looked at the acreage when the rezoning request came in, but then there would be an additional review.

Commissioner Hack asked what happened when there was a square footage proposal.

Finger said there would be two views, a broad view and a more specific view.        

Commissioner Schauner asked to what extent were they limited in their second look after it had been zoned commercial or PCD.

Finger said based on Chapter 6, as drafted and adopted by the City Commission, there would still be a comprehensive plan. 

Finger suggested having more discussions about that marketing tool.      

Commissioner Schauner echoed Commissioner Highberger’s statements.   He said he did not have any particular issue with any of those rezoning requests, but he had a concern about the commercial rezoning.  He said that node was likely to be the largest single development, both commercial and otherwise that would be seen in the City for quite some time and a very large community center.  He would rather the Commission take that commercial piece slowly so that the Commission understood exactly what they were doing and they would not end up trying to retrofit or to satisfy a lot of competing interests down the road.  He would like the Commission to get this issue right this time rather than later.

Commissioner Rundle concurred and said especially if the County wanted to discuss the allocation of commercial to that intersection.  If the City Commission changed what they had sent to the County, it might not fit that nodal plan. 

Finger asked if there was a general concern about acreage itself because she wanted to know if any of those other items could move ahead.

Commissioner Hack commented on that commercial piece.  She said the City Commission had asked the applicant for a mini-comprehensive plan of that area.  She said it seemed that there were transitional areas and buffers and the thing that was always of a concern was commercial area backing up to a neighborhood.  She said when those things were put into place from the beginning, then those people who were going to buy property in that area had a clear understanding of what was going to be there.  She thought Diamond Head had done everything that the Commission had asked them to do and it was a good plan.

Commissioner Dunfield said he agreed with Commissioner Hack that having the comprehensive view of that node was not what the Commission asked for.  He said he did not have any desire to delay those rezoning requests, but the fact was they did not have an adopted commercial chapter of Horizon 2020, at least not one that this Commission had agreed with.  The County Commission had not agreed to the nodal plan the City Commission did not know what kind of changes they might be suggesting when they get together do discuss that issue. 

Although he thought that those rezoning request, including the PCD, should be approved, he did not think he was ready to approve that portion tonight. 

Jarboe said they could not stand for those rezoning request to be considered not as a whole because it was all interrelated.  He said they had done everything the City Commission had asked them to do.   He asked that the Commission approve the other rezoning requests, but he did understand that the single-family would need to be addressed later and he was not concerned about that.  He said those rezoning requests needed to be considered all together because those rezonings had tremendous effect on one another. He hoped the Commission would consider those rezonings tonight because they had done a lot of hard work to get those issues to the City Commission. The nodal plan was carefully thought out and everyone had said they were in conformity with the nodal plan and Horizon 2020.  He said they did not want to consider this issue piecemeal, but they hoped the Commission would consider it favorably.     

Vice Mayor Rundle asked Finger what the County was talking about in terms of the allocation of commercial space.

Finger said the County Commission’s concern was of not being part of the process and the development of the plan.  The First United Methodist Church made a presentation on their quadrant and talked about potential uses and they had not gotten a clear indication from the City Commission what they could or couldn’t do.  The County Commission operated in a different forum.  She said the County Commission wanted a lot of interaction between all property owners, particularly those within the unincorporated area about the nodal plan.   The County Commission also had a concern that since this was such a large node, why was the commercial only on the City’s portion of the plan.   

Commissioner Schauner said he recognized that the developer/landowner had spent a lot of time, energy, and money on this issue, but on the other hand this was not unlike a business transaction between those representing the public’s business and interest in this issue.  He said the Commission owed it to the citizens of Lawrence to not look at those 100 acres as if it was the “be all” and “end all” for that node.  There were 3 other corners and a lot of other property owners who would have an equal interest in maximizing their property’s value.  To the extent that the PCD portion of that had an impact on those corners being incorporated or unincorporated ground, it was worth not acting on this issue at this time.  He said the landowner preferred that the City Commission act on this issue as a unit so he preferred to defer the issue.

Vice Mayor Rundle said the nodal plan that the City Commission sent favored that project in that there wasn’t commercial on the other intersections.  If the County wanted to reallocate that acreage, it could reduce the acreage on the corner and it was the City Commission’s job to convince the County that they had a sound basis for making that recommendation. 

Mayor Dunfield said when this item was placed on the City Commission’s agenda this week, the assumption was that there would be an approved nodal plan and that the Commission would be following that plan in the actions of the proposed rezoning requests.  He agreed with Commissioner Schauner in that this issue should be deferred until that nodal plan was finalized so that the Commission would know if they were talking about commercial on only the east or whether they would be distributing that acreage in some other fashion.   

Commissioner Hack asked Finger about a timetable for this nodal plan.  She said the City Commission was placing undo hardship on the developer/property owner.   

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said that Craig Weinaug, County Administrator, said they would like to have a study session with the Commission soon. 

Mayor Dunfield said they did not want to delay this issue indefinitely and again the assumption was that the City Commission would have had that nodal plan in place, but they didn’t.  He said the Commission would set a study session date as soon as they could, to try and get that resolved. 

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to table the rezoning requests south of west 6^th Street, until after the study session with the County Commission.  Motion carried unanimously.