Swearing in of witnesses.
BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING:
ITEM NO. 6A: PRD-2 (WITH RESTRICTIONS) TO PRD-2; 12.5508 ACRES; SOUTH OF 24TH PLACE BETWEEN CROSSGATE DRIVE & INVERNESS DRIVE (SLD)
Z-07-32-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 12.5508 acres from PRD-2 (with restrictions) to PRD-2. The property is generally described as being located south of 24th Place between Crossgate Drive & Inverness Drive. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc, for Callaway Development Corporation, Contract Purchaser, and Inverness Park Limited Partnership, property owners of record. This is a rehearing of a request considered at the June 23, 2004, Planning Commission meeting.
ITEM NO. 6B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LEGENDS AT KU, PHASE II; SOUTH OF 24TH PLACE BETWEEN CROSSGATE DRIVE & INVERNESS DRIVE (SLD)
PDP-07-08-04: Preliminary Development Plan for The Legends at KU, Phase II. This proposed multiple-family residential development contains approximately 12.5508 acres and proposes 172 apartments and recreational amenities. The property is generally described as being located south of 24th Place between Crossgate Drive & Inverness Drive. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc, for Callaway Development Corporation, Contract Purchaser, and Inverness Park Limited Partnership, property owners of record. This is a rehearing of a request considered at the June 23, 2004, Planning Commission meeting.
Items 6A & 6B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the items, a rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for the second phase of a high-end, student rental housing development. She described the existing zoning and uses of the surrounding area, including single-family residential to the south and east. The property to the north contains Phase I of this development, and the land to the west is zoned RO but is undeveloped.
Items 4A and 4B, approved on this evening’s Consent Agenda, provided for a cross access easement between Phase I and Phase II, if Phase II was approved.
As part of the request, the applicant asked for an increase in the density cap, which was set at 12 dwelling units per acre (12 upa) with a previous rezoning. Some time after the rezoning set this density cap, a development plan was approved for the subject property that met the 12 upa requirement, but this plan expired without getting a building permit and was no longer valid.
The applicant requested the density cap be raised to allow 13.7 upa, based on a development plan that would, according to the applicant, result in better transitioning and fewer bedrooms (i.e. fewer residents and lower technical density).
Staff provided an estimated density comparison per Study Session discussion, showing the number of potential bedrooms (residents) with 12 upa versus 13.7 upa. Calculations were also provided for the potential residency of the previously approved development plan, now expired. Ms. Day stressed the fact that the Commission has no regulatory authority to calculate density by any measure other than dwelling units per acre, based on total gross area.
Ms. Day explained that traffic, utility and infrastructure considerations were addressed as part of the previous development plan, and this project was required to do a Traffic Impact Study as well. Staff agreed with the conclusion of this study that no road improvements would be needed to accommodate the project as proposed.
Staff recommended denial of the rezoning request to increase the density to 13.7 upa, finding no evidence to support the request. Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Development Plan, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report and retaining the 12 upa density cap.
Ms. Day said the applicant proposed to address Staff’s transitioning concerns through the use of landscaping, additional setbacks and multiple building types.
Per Study Session discussion, Staff had taken pictures of the landscaped berm on Inverness Drive at 15th Street (A.K.A. Bob Billings Parkway) and determined that a similar treatment was possible on the median to the west of the subject property.
Vice-Chairman Riordan asked Staff to address the public comment that the area was zoned at a lesser density and with only single-story buildings allowed. Ms. Day replied that the PRD zoning was approved – with the 12 upa density – without an accompanying development plan. The development plan was submitted later and approved according to the restrictions of the zoning that was already in place. That zoning was still in effect, although the previous development plan had expired.
Comm. Burress asked Staff to describe under what circumstances the Commission could deny the plan. Ms. Day replied that the findings Staff used to review the project were outlined in the Staff Report. The Commission would have to base a denial on a determination that those findings were incorrect or inadequate to support approval of the project.
Comm. Burress asked if the project fulfilled the code requirement that PUD’s should be “creative” and “innovative”. Ms. Day said the code did not provide a definition of those terms, but such as the case for this project could be based on the provision of extra open areas and connectivity that was unlike other, similar projects.
There was discussion about the various kinds of transitioning encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan, including additional setbacks, berming, landscaping, building type, etc. The plan does not state that one kind of transition is better than others and this proposal did utilize several of these transition types. If the Commission felt the proposed transitioning was not adequate, they had the ability to condition modifications.
Several points were verified with Staff
· The Commission cannot directly restrict the number of bedrooms, but can limit the number according to what was shown on the development plan.
· The Commission cannot directly control the number of residents, but can exercise some authority over the type of structures (1-, 2-, 3-bedroom)
· The existing zoning (with the density cap) was not approved in conjunction with or anticipation of the first (or any) approved development plan.
· The applicant would be better suited to state whether the property could be developed with duplexes as suggested by the public.
· Tom Braccianno of the School District said this type of development was not one that he would typically associate with “predatory behavior” on the part of the residents toward passing elementary school children.
Staff said the issue of children crossing the street was a legitimate concern, but public sidewalks and lighted crosswalks were provided and most of the traffic activity associated with the new development would be traveling in different directions and at different times than the schoolchildren.
Comm. Angino entered at 7:10 p.m.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, spoke on behalf of the contract purchaser, Callaway Development, which he said specialized in student housing nationwide. Mr. Keeney said this project was particularly significant as the “flagship” for a new quality of student housing, and it was backed by Kansas University investors and alumni.
Mr. Keeney said the primary public concern was density, and he described how a design with 13.7 upa would actually house fewer residents and provide more amenities and more transitioning than one designed with 12 upa. The 13.7 upa design contained a mix of housing types, concentrating units with more bedrooms next to the existing Phase one and reducing intensity to 1- and 2-bedroom townhome units next to the residential areas to the west.
The 13.7 upa design also included six kinds of transitioning to reduce the impact of the development on the neighborhood to the west:
1. Increased building setback on the west side to 50’;
2. Sensitive architectural design to make the rear façade resemble the front;
3. Continuous 4-6’ tall berm;
4. Mature, solid landscaping on top of berm;
5. Maintenance of landscape screening on median in Inverness Drive between the properties as a “second tier”; and
6. “Third tier” of screening created by mature trees in public right of way along the west side of the street.
Mr. Keeney made other points:
· These elements were proposed in addition to the 6’ solid wood fence already in place on the west side of the street.
· The applicant wanted to install the median landscaping before construction began to shield the neighborhood from the impact of construction.
· A design with 12 upa was possible but would not have as much space to provide internal amenities or external transitioning.
· Very little of the townhomes proposed for the western edge of the subject property would be visible beyond the three tiers of vegetative screening and the neighborhood’s fence.
· The applicant was not opposed to a condition limiting the number of bedrooms to the 476 shown on the proposed development plan.
· A 12 upa design would contain approximately 602 bedrooms.
· The quality of this developer’s project can be seen in Phase I.
PUBLIC HEARING
Brandon Dahl, Dahl Construction, explained he had a big financial stake in the success of the proposed project. He had developed $2.5 million worth of homes next to the subject property and he believed the success of this project was crucial to his ability to sell them.
Mr. Dahl said he lived in the area and the existing Phase I was the “best looking complex [he’d] seen in Lawrence”.
Rob Hulse, area resident, said he lived directly to the west of the property and had sent letters to the Commission regarding this Item. He said the neighborhood was “presented with a very pretty package” when the senior residence was proposed a few years ago. The neighborhood had accepted that proposal, with the 12 upa density cap, because that use fit the area well.
Mr. Hulse said he was concerned about the new development, which he described as “29 acres of KU students”. He felt this use was not a suitable fit for the existing neighborhood and supported this concern by asking why the developer was trying so hard to hide the project.
Mr. Hulse referenced the multiple existing apartment complexes in the area and asked how many bedrooms were needed within 200 feet of two schools. He asked the Commission to address the residents’ traffic concerns.
Brad Remington said he also lived west of the subject property and agreed with Mr. Hulse that the development proposal was pretty but that fact that it had to be hidden so thoroughly proved it did not fit the area. Mr. Remington said there was not one resident in the western neighborhood who supported the current proposal.
Mr. Remington said the area was already congested when school was letting out and asked if it would be possible (if the plan were approved) to make a section of 24th Street one-way so residents of the complex would not drive in front of the schools.
Comm. Burress pointed out that a multi-family development was already approved for the area with the PRD-2 zoning. He asked if Mr. Remington would prefer the Commission approve the project with the 12 upa restriction, knowing that would result in more residents and less buffering. Mr. Remington replied that he would like the area to develop with “homes that look like homes”. He said the area did not need any more apartments, especially when so many spaces nearer to campus were vacant.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Keeney said the majority of comments centered on the fact that the neighbors did not want an apartment complex here, but that was already approved. He said the question at this point should be what quality of development would be constructed, which depended entirely on the developer. In his opinion, this developer was the best choice. Mr. Keeney asked the Commission to approve the rezoning and preliminary development plan as presented, with the 13.7 upa density cap increase.
Ms. Day stated that the land use maps in HORIZON 2020 had shown the subject area as low-density residential since the mid 1990’s. When the retirement facility was approved, there was extensive discussion about transitioning and the density cap of 12 upa was upheld. The development plan created under that density cap met the code definition of medium density.
Several points were verified:
· The overall density of the current plan (with 13.7 upa) still met the code definition of medium density.
· Staff was prepared to provide language for conditioning a landscaped berm as discussed.
· The Planning Commission does not have the authority to make a street one-way.
· Staff has not seen the applicant’s proposed façade design, but the Commission could condition submittal of front and rear elevations as part of the Final Development Plan.
· The Commission can condition mature trees of a certain height or caliper as part of a PUD.
· The Staff Report included a proposed condition that agreements be executed regarding the applicant’s maintenance of the landscaped median and the land across the street proposed for additional landscaped screening.
Comm. Burress referenced the perception by some area residents that they had been the victim of a “bait and switch” with the original approval of the very low density retirement facility. Staff said the way the Zoning Ordinance was written would allow such a thing to happen. However, that was not the case here, since zoning was approved in 1999 without a development plan. Ms. Day explained that situation could be avoided in the future by tying approval of the zoning to approval and recording of a Final Development Plan, which was possible only with PUD zoning. The Commission could control the following elements by making this kind of direct connection:
· Density
· Building height
· Number of stories
· Building type
· Number of bedrooms
· Screening/landscaping
There was discussion about the proposed landscaped screening areas and the possibility these areas would come back to the city for maintenance if the current developer sold the property. Other options included the transfer of responsibility through the purchase agreement or the development of an escrow or bind to ensure future maintenance.
COMMISSION DISUSSION
Comm. Angino said this proposal met the criteria but the Commission was considering denying it “because we don’t like it or the neighbors don’t like it”. He said any development at all, even one home, would increase the density and the traffic of the area and this proposal did “a good job of shielding” the development.
Comm. Angino said college students were the driving force behind Lawrence growth and it was unfair to characterize them all as bad or unsafe drivers. He said there were plenty of parents with children in large vehicles that were just as much of a hazard.
Comm. Burress asked if approving the request for 13 upa in order to get more amenities and transitioning was “bad logic” in light of Staff’s recommendation. Ms. Day replied that Staff’s recommendation to retain the 12 upa density cap was based on the lack of information or justification presented by the applicant for the rezoning request.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 6A
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the rezoning of 12.5508 acres from PRD-2 (with restrictions) to PRD-2 with a revised density cap of 13.7 dwelling units per acre and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the following findings of fact:
1. The applicant’s testimony justified the increased density cap as a way to provide improved transitioning without an increase in the potential number of residents.
The motion was subject to the following condition:
1. Approval and filing of a Final Development Plan with the Register of Deeds prior to publication of the zoning.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Comm. Haase explained he had been doing research on trip generation for an unrelated project, and had found evidence that student housing generated fewer trips (4.5 – 6.4) than single-family housing (9.7). The distribution of these trips were also significantly different.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 6B
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to grant a waiver to allow a peripheral reduction from 35’ to 15’ for the bus shelter building along 24th Place.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to grant a waiver to allow a peripheral reduction from 35’ to 15’ along the east property line.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Com Angino to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for the Legends at KU, Phase II PRD and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following revised conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
Chairman Haase called a 5-miunte recess.