Chairman Jennings reconvened the meeting at the County Commission Chambers on October 30, 2002 at 6:30 pm. Other Commissioners present: Durflinger, Haase, Angino, Burress, Schachter, Lawson, Bateman and Vice-Chair Pine.
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Day, Dyer and Saker
ITEM NO. 10A: A TO RS-2; 32.253 ACRES; SOUTH OF W. SIXTH STREET BETWEEN K-10 HIGHWAY AND GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) (SLD)
Z-09-29-02: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 32.253 acres, from A (Agricultural) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of W. Sixth Street between K-10 Highway and George Williams Way (extended). Submitted by Brian Kubota for Diamond Head Limited Partnership, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 10B: A TO RM-1; 14.467 ACRES; SOUTH OF W. SIXTH STREET BETWEEN K-10 HIGHWAY AND GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) (SLD)
Z-09-30-02: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 14.467 acres, from A (Agricultural) District to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residence) District. The property is generally described as being located at the south of W. Sixth Street between K-10 Highway and George Williams Way (extended). Submitted by Brian Kubota for Diamond Head Limited Partnership, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 10C: A TO RO-2; 7.013 ACRES; SOUTH OF W. SIXTH STREET AND WEST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) (SLD)
Z-09-31-02: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 7.013 acres, from A (Agricultural) District to RO-2 (Residence-Office) District. The property is generally described as being located south of W. Sixth Street and west of George Williams Way (extended). Submitted by Brian Kubota for Diamond Head Limited Partnership, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 10D: A TO RM-2; 12.836 ACRES; SOUTH OF W. SIXTH STREET AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (SLD)
Z-09-32-02: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 12.836 acres, from A (Agricultural) District to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residence) District. The property is generally described as being located south of W. Sixth Street and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Brian Kubota for Diamond Head Limited Partnership, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 10E: A TO PCD-2; 32.713 ACRES; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF W. SIXTH STREET AND K-10 HIGHWAY (SLD)
Z-09-33-02: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 32.713 acres, from A (Agricultural) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial) District. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of W. Sixth Street and K-10 Highway. Submitted by Brian Kubota for Diamond Head Limited Partnership, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 10F: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DIAMONDHEAD; SOUTH OF W. SIXTH STREET BETWEEN K-10 HIGHWAY & AND GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) (SLD)
PP-09-17-02: Preliminary Plat for Diamondhead is a proposed single-family, multi-family, residential/office, planned commercial district containing 99.28 acres and 96 lots. The property is generally described as being located south of W. Sixth Street between K-10 Highway and George Williams Way (extended). Submitted by Brian Kubota for Diamond Head Limited Partnership, property owners of record.
Items 10A – 10F were discussed simultaneously at the October 30, 2002 session of the meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the Items, noting that 10A – 10E were requests for rezonings that would provide the framework for the phased project presented in Item 10F. The majority of the area surrounding this proposed development is currently undeveloped except for the Elementary School located south of the property. The timing of the 6th Street improvements was a significant element of the proposed plan.
Ms. Day stated that, while the applicant’s plan set out access limitation, the interior lot lines would possibly change slightly as development plans were finalized.
Staff recommended approval of all Items, subject to the conditions included in the Staff Reports.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Brian Kubota reviewed the layout of the project in relation to the surrounding area, noting the intent to create a “model community”.
Mr. Kubota explained he was seeking rezoning of the entire property at this point in order to facilitate his involvement in the planning and placement of the infrastructure that would ultimately serve this project. Additionally, having approval in the early stages of development at the intersection, new homeowners in the area would be forewarned as to the eventual commercial uses nearby. This would avoid the situation seen recently with the 6th & Wakarusa proposal, where area residents claimed they did not know when they moved in that they would have such a large retail center in the neighborhood.
Regarding the PCD request, Mr. Kubota stated every piece of the proposal was in compliance with Horizon 2020, with the exception of the requested acreage. He said the standards and criteria in the current Code were outdated, based on standards made in 1960. The planning environment had changed, becoming larger and more diverse. The additional requirements for greenspace, open space, stormwater detention and setbacks considerably reduced the amount of “usable” land.
Mr. Kubota reviewed at length the problems associated with the fact that the only access to the development would be along George Williams Way, a street that is termed a collector but may eventually carry traffic volumes equal to that of a minor arterial. Several safety measures were
suggested and considered. Mr. Kubota stated his intent to recommend a third lane on George Williams Way and noted the adjacent landowners would like to see this street extended to Highway 40. This would further increase traffic and may eventually create the pressure needed to convince the State to approve an interchange at 15th Street and the trafficway.
Phil Struble of Landplan Engineering concurred that a third lane should be part of the planned George Williams Way improvements, as well as an evaluation of the required length for the stacking lanes.
The Commission was concerned with the effect of the increased traffic volumes on the nearby Elementary School, but it was pointed out the school had known when they chose that location that the area was planned for high-volume commercial development. It was further noted the School Board appeared to favor placement of schools at collector intersections, presumably to facilitate traffic movements for their busses. The Commission discussed how much consideration should be given to school placement, given the fact the School Board knowingly chose this and other similar placements. Ms. Finger pointed out this particular location was originally chosen for a high school, which had different placement criteria than the elementary school that was eventually located on the site.
Mr. Kubota said the phasing of his project would be determined by the progress of the George Williams Way improvements, but construction of the commercial portion could not begin until approximately 2006 at the earliest. Mr. Kubota said this would allow as much time as possible for infrastructure planning.
Comm. Burress believed this was the most important development he had seen – or possibly would see – during his term on the Commission. He stated he would like as much time as possible to study the project and asked the applicant what his losses would be if the Commission chose to table the proposed project for additional review time. Mr. Kubota reiterated his desire to be involved from the beginning with road improvements and infrastructure planning to avoid retrofitting for his development when it finally began construction.
Comm. Burress posed the question of a future Regional Commercial Center. It was suggested this development could not occur northwest of the trafficway unless the Perry-Lecompton and Lawrence School Districts came to an agreement. The other option for placement was the southwest quadrant.
Mr. Kubota responded to questioning that he did believe his proposal was adequate to meet the demand for a Community Commercial Center. He did not believe additional retail space would be needed, but said “anything was” possible and indicated there may be pressure for a similar development on the northeast corner.
The Commission discussed frontage road possibilities.
Comm. Angino commented that most predictions on future development quickly became obsolete, and that this area was dictated by the current lack of a 15th Street connection.
It was stated the proposed development would not significantly affect the topography of the land or the resultant water runoff.
PUBLIC HEARING
Maria Martin spoke on behalf of the Downtown Lawrence Association, stating the group’s request that the Commission carefully consider the effect the proposed project – particularly the commercial zoning in Item 10E – would have on the Downtown area. The Association feared there would be two Community Commercial Centers and one Neighborhood Center, and few new sales tax dollars generated. Monies would simply transfer from one venue to the other. Ms. Martin noted the recommendation in Horizon 2020 to maintain Downtown as the primary Regional Commercial Center. The Association would like the Commission to consider an impact study of all four corners of the subject intersection, prior to approving any additional commercial development in that area. She suggested the study include a plan for all four corners and the impact of that plan.
Melinda Henderson also spoke regarding Item 10E, noting the Comprehensive Plan’s requirement to keep commercial development at maximum size of no more than 30 acres. She asked if it were more appropriate to dedicate all available commercial space to a single corner, or to wait for completion of the revised commercial chapter of the Plan for new guidelines.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Ms. Day pointed out the revised Staff Report page for Item 10A, which recommended the initiation of rezoning for the area west of the subject property. This would require a separate action from the Commission.
It was established the Highway 40 improvements would not be complete until approximately 2006, at which time construction on the commercial part of the proposed project could begin.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Kubota stressed again his desire to be involved from the beginning in the planning process for the road improvements and infrastructure design that would affect his project. He felt this would avoid needless retrofitting costs when the project was finally able to begin construction.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff explained the reasoning behind their recommendation for approval of all 30 acres of commercial space on a single corner. Among the reasons was the fact that this was the first request at the undeveloped intersection, the 30 acres of commercial land was an integral part of the overall design, and utilities and infrastructure were immediately available.
It was estimated that less than 5 acres of “usable” commercial space would remain on the northwest corner after easements, rights-of-way and setbacks were applied.
It was determined there was only one Lawrence school that did not lie on an intersection of collectors. Staff stated there was nothing in the Code requiring the Commission to respond reactively to the actions of the School Board.
Comm. Durflinger asked to clarify that Horizon 2020 does not state where the next Regional Commercial Center should be located. Only Community Commercial Centers are addressed in this manner.
Comm. Burress suggested a Text Amendment could be initiated to obtain more power over the decisions of the School Board.
Comm. Burress asked if Staff concurred the applicant’s assumptions that 15th Street would eventually connect to the South Lawrence Trafficway, that the other three corners of this intersection would not be developed, and that 22 net acres of commercial retail would be sufficient to serve the area. Ms. Day replied that there had been no conclusion regarding where the next Regional Commercial center would be. As to the development of the intersection, Horizon 2020 stated not all four corners should be commercially developed. The Commission needed to decide how many corners and how the total allowable commercial area should be split.
Comm. Burress confirmed with Staff the understanding the recommendation for approval of this project was effectively a recommendation that commercial development be allowed on only one corner of the intersection. He asked if the total allowable acreage referred to a gross or net measurement.
Comm. Jennings commented that even if both the northeast and the northwest corners were commercially developed, the interchange would put their access points at least one-half mile apart. There would be little to no cross traffic between the two developments.
Comm. Schachter said he supported the idea of planning in advance, and that it was unfair to penalize the applicant for the placement of the school. However, there were questions that should be answered in order to determine if this was the best corner for this development. He noted that the adopted Northwest Area Plan showed only one corner of this intersection for commercial development. Comm. Schachter suggested the non-commercial zonings be recommended for approval and the commercial one tabled for the creation of an area plan.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Item 10A: Z-09-29-02
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the request to rezone 32.253 acres from A to RS-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the findings of fact found in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Item 10B: Z-09-30-02
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the request to rezone 14.47 acres from A to RM-1 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the findings of fact found in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the request to rezone 7.013 acres from A to RO-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the findings of fact found in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the request to rezone 12.836 acres from A to RM-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the findings of fact found in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to table Item 10E to allow for completion of an area plan including an evaluation of land use and traffic concerns for the one-half mile surrounding the intersection.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Staff responded to questioning that they could have an area plan to present to the Commission for the March 2003 meeting, provided the plan was expected only to include Staff evaluation, not public and/or Commission input.
Comm. Angino said the Comprehensive Plan recommended future planning be done for as large a piece of land as possible and as early as possible. He felt the applicant had accomplished this for himself.
Comm. Schachter explained the area plan would provide information on the availability/adequacy of public facilities, and evaluate land uses and road patterns. Delaying the project would also allow for completion and inclusion of the Horizon 2020 commercial chapter revisions.
Comm. Durflinger stated the Comprehensive Plan dealt with anticipated uses, while the applicant’s proposal was concrete.
It was noted the location, length and use of George Williams Way was set by the W. 6th Street Access Management Plan adopted by the City Commission.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Durflinger and seconded to make a substitute motion to approve the request to rezone 32.713 acres from A to PCD-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the findings of fact found in the body of the Staff Report and subject to conditions as stated in the Staff Report.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
The Commission discussed the ramifications of delaying the Item 4 months (until March 2003). Comm. Durflinger said it was unlikely the Commission would act at the end of the 4-month period. This was the way the Commission had behaved for years and he felt it was not working – he said it would be fairer to give the applicant a definite answer now. Comm. Schachter suggested the Commission could table the Item 4 months in anticipation of the area plan, but agree to act at the end of that time, whether the plan was available or not.
Comm. Bateman said she favored the substitute motion, but would not vote in favor of any additional commercial development at this intersection prior to receipt of the new Horizon 2020 commercial chapter.
Comm. Haase stated he was in favor of area planning and saw no harm in a 4-month delay.
Comm. Burress asked how, without an area plan, the Commission could be sure which corner was best suited for commercial development.
Comm. Durflinger made several points regarding his support of immediate action:
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motion by Comm. Lawson and seconded to call the question. There were no objections.
Motion on the floor was to allow the substitute motion, approving Item 10E as presented.
Motion passed 6-3, with Comm.’s Burress, Schachter and Haase voting in opposition to the motion to make the substitution.
Motion on the floor was to approve the request to rezone 32.713 acres from A to PCD-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the findings of fact found in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of a preliminary development plan prior to publication of a rezoning ordinance and;
2. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion passed 6-3, with Comm.’s Burress, Schachter and Haase voting in opposition to the motion.
Item 10F: PP-09-17-02
Motioned by Comm. Durflinger and seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat of Diamondhead, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried 7-1-1, with Comm. Schachter voting in opposition and Comm. Burress abstaining due to his absence from the room.
Motion by Comm. Pine and seconded to direct Staff to begin developing an area plan for the intersection.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was discussed and decided Staff would have 6-months to complete the plan for Commission review. It would then be presented to the adjacent property owners. The Commission agreed this could occur concurrently with the completion of the Horizon 2020 commercial chapter.
Comm. Lawson noted the Commission was already adding to their list of goals set at the October mid-month meeting.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to direct Staff to develop, within 6 months and concurrently with the completion of the Horizon 2020 commercial chapter revisions, an area plan for the intersection at W. 6th Street and Highway K-10.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to initiate rezoning from A to RS-2 for the property located west of the subject property, extended to the trafficway and north of the proposed extension of Harvard Road.
Motion carried 8-0-1, with Comm. Durflinger abstaining due to his absence from the room.
Chairman Jennings called a 5-minute recess. The meeting reconvened with the discussion of Item 12.