PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
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.
|
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: |
RO-1B (Residence-Office) District to the north; vacant.
|
|
|
PRD-2 (Planned Residential District) to the east; existing multi-family planned residential development.
|
|
|
RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District to the south and west; existing single-family homes.
|
|
Reason for Request: |
A previous request was submitted (PDP-05-03-04), due to an error in the certified list developed by the County Clerk’s office, notice was not sent to all property owners of record as required per Article 18 of the City code. That request was considered at the June 23m 2004 Planning Commission meeting. |
History:
A previous submittal [PDP-05-03-04] was considered by the Planning Commission in June. Do to an error in the certified list developed by the County Clerk’s Office notice was not sent to all property owners of record as required per Article 18 of the City Code. The surrounding property owners executed a protest petition in opposition of the accompanying zoning change. During the evaluation of the protest petition it was discovered that adequate notice had not been provided to property owners and the item was removed from the City Commission’s agenda and the applicant informed of the lack of notice. The public hearing/Planning Commission action was voided for both the zoning and development plan request as a result of this finding. Therefore:
A new public hearing is required to consider a proposed preliminary development plan.
|
Site Summary:
| ||
|
|
Proposed Legends at K.U. Phase II |
Legends at K.U. Phase 1 (University Village PDP) |
|
Gross Area:
|
12.5 gross acres (Net and gross acreage are same for this project.) |
16.88 gross acres (15.38 net acres excluding drainage area) |
|
Density: |
13.71 dwelling units per net acre [proposed] |
11.84 dwelling units per acre calculated based on gross area 13 dwelling units per acre calculated based on net density |
|
Number of Dwelling Units: |
172 units (36 1-Br units; 52 2-br units; and 84 4-br units) |
200 units |
|
Open Space Required: |
109,343 SF at 20% |
147,059 SF at 20% |
|
Open Space Provided: |
243,509 SF (44.7%) |
400,316 SF (includes large drainage easement located along east property line) |
|
Off-Street Parking: |
342 spaces Required 478 spaces Provided (Including garage & carport spaces) |
461 spaces 659 spaces |
The proposed Preliminary Development Plan has been evaluated based upon the following suggested findings of fact and conclusions outlined in Section 20-1010.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Lawrence:
1) In what respects the plan is or is not in general conformity with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
An evaluation of the conformance of this Preliminary Development Plan with the City's Comprehensive Plan is based on the goals, policies and recommendations in Horizon 2020.
The subject site was rezoned from A (Agricultural) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential District) with a maximum permitted density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The original rezoning (Z-04-10-99) was approved in late 1999 which established the density restriction for this property.
Horizon 2020 encourages “the clustering of new residential development which maximizes open space and protects natural and environmentally sensitive areas.” There are no identified natural or environmentally sensitive areas within the project boundary. The following goals and policies are specifically related to the physical elements of the proposed development:
· Chapter Five – Residential Land Use, Strategies: Residential Development states that “compatible densities and housing types should be encouraged in residential neighborhoods by providing appropriate transition zones between low density residential land uses and more intensive residential development and between higher density residential uses and nonresidential land uses”. The transition of density from Clinton Parkway south through the entire “Getto” property, which is now know as Inverness Park Addition, was the impetus for the 12 dwelling unit per acre maximum. The 12 unit per acre maximum was seen as the appropriate density for this transition and was echoed in the rezoning staff report. With a 12 unit per acre maximum, this site would meet the intent of Horizon 2020.
· Chapter Five – Residential Land Use, City of Lawrence, Medium-Density Residential Development states “Most of the sites recommended for new medium-density (7 to 15 units per acre) residential development occupy transitional locations between single-family neighborhoods and office/commercial areas. Some sites are recommended near large open space or natural areas. In addition to providing attractive new housing options within the City, these areas should be designed to help avoid major and abrupt changes in density or use.” This site is a transitional zone between single-family zoning and office zoning. The site is located next to a large drainage way and natural area. The zoning was restricted to a maximum of 12 units per acre in order to avoid major and abrupt changes in density throughout the overall development.
· Goal 6 Compatible Transition from Low-Density Residential Development to More Intensive Land Uses – Ensure transition from low-density residential neighborhoods is compatible with more intensive residential and nonresidential land uses. This goal and the related policies encourage a transition in density. This transition was a significant issue when the entire 160 aces was rezoned and annexed in 1999.
· Residential Land Use Goals and Policies, Medium- and Higher-Density Residential Land Use, Goals 1 through 4 and the associated policies provide guidelines on where and at what scale medium and higher density residential developments are appropriate. The plan, as presented, is not in general conformity with these statements. The density does not correspond to what was approved through the zoning process and does not conform to the goals and policies within Horizon 2020. The physical layout of the site, as conditioned to reduce the overall density, does meet the general requirements.
· Policies 2.6 a and b, in particular, state that (a) “the number of dwelling units per acre in any residential category should be viewed as representing a potential density range rather than a guaranteed maximum density. Potential development should be approved based upon consideration on natural features, public facilities, streets and traffic patterns, neighborhood character, and surrounding zoning and land use patterns. (b) Develop standards for density and intensity of uses.” The density as shown on the submitted plan is not in conformance with these policies. The density was limited to 12 dwelling units per acre at the time the property was rezoned. Horizon 2020 was utilized in defining the standards for density on this site.
Staff Finding - The proposed development includes multiple buildings for an apartment development as an extension of the existing development immediately to the east. The proposed development does not comply with the recommended land use as was originally approved in 1999. The proposed multi-family development exceeds the maximum approved density of 12 dwelling and is shown at 13.7 dwelling units per acre. Staff recommends the proposed development be revised to reduce the total number of dwelling units to not exceed 12 per acre per the existing zoning limitation. The physical layout of the proposed development, as conditioned, is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; however, the density as presented is not supported by Horizon 2020.
2) In what respects the plan is or is not consistent with the Statement of Objectives of Planned Unit Development.
The statement of objectives of planned unit developments is found in Section 20-1002 of the Zoning Ordinance, which reads as follows:
(1) To promote and permit flexibility that will encourage innovative and imaginative approaches in residential, commercial, and industrial development which will result in a more efficient, aesthetic, desirable and economic use of the land while maintaining density and intensity of use consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City;
The proposed development includes vehicular and sidewalk connections to the adjacent public street network and the future recreation path along the drainage way thus preserving basic connectivity to the surrounding neighborhood. The development includes a mix of housing types by providing multiple units on the interior of the development and two 8-plex units along the west property line.
(2) To promote development within the City that can be conveniently, efficiently and economically served by existing municipal utilities and services or by their logical extension;
The subject area is located within the existing urban area and can be accommodated with public and private utility services.
(3) To promote design flexibility including placement of buildings, and use of open space, pedestrian and vehicular circulation facilities to and through the site, and off-street parking areas in a manner that will best utilize potential on-site characteristics such as topography, geology, geography, size or proximity;
The topography of the site is gently rolling. The significant concern with regard to building placement is providing an appropriate land use transition between the proposed development and the single-family residential neighborhoods to the south and west. A large public green space is located along the south property line and is augmented with the 35’ peripheral setback.
(4) To provide for the preservation of historic or natural features where they are shown to be in the public's best interest including but not limited to such features as: drainageways, floodplains, existing topography or rock outcroppings, unique areas of vegetation, historic landmarks or structures.
There are no natural features to be retained or preserved through this development that are beneficial to the public. The proposed development will include a connection to a future pedestrian pathway along the south property line providing additional access to public recreation areas.
Staff Finding –With the exception of density and compatibility, the proposed development is consistent with the Statement of Objectives as it pertains to Section 20-1002. Staff recommends the plan be revised to reduce the density to not exceed 12 dwelling units per acre.
3) The nature and extent of the common open space in the Planned Unit Development, the reliability of the proposals for maintenance and conservation of the common open space, and the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and function of the common open space in terms of the densities and dwelling types proposed in the plan.
Staff Finding – The proposed development exceeds the minimum open space requirement and provides a centrally located area that includes recreational amenities for residents within both the proposed development and the existing Phase to the east. The Preliminary Development Plan indicates the maintenance responsibility for open spaces shall be the responsibility of the property owner.
The plan also includes access to a public recreation area to be developed with a pedestrian path in the future. The private access to this facility will be constructed as part of the proposed development.
The plan provides an extra-ordinary setback along the west property line between the single-family homes to the west and the proposed multi-family development to the east. Public open space and the minimum setback provide separation of use along the south side.
4) Whether the plan does or does not make adequate provisions for public services, provide adequate control over vehicular traffic, and further the amenities of light and air, recreation and visual enjoyment.
Staff Finding – The proposed development includes a series of connected drives and interior sidewalks within development. Access to the development is accommodated via 24th Place and an extension of the existing development to the east. The proposed development includes parking lots in groups around the perimeter of the development and within smaller sections of the residential development so that each group of buildings is provided with parking.
5) Whether the plan will or will not have a substantial adverse effect on adjacent property and the development or conservation of the neighborhood area.
The plan, with a reduction in density and as conditioned, is not anticipated to have a substantial adverse effect on adjacent property and the development or conservation of any adjacent neighborhoods.
Staff finding: The plan is not anticipated to have a substantial adverse effect on adjacent property and the development or conservation of the neighborhood area.
6) In what respects the plan is or is not in conformance with the development standards and criteria of this article.
a) The general development standards pertaining to all planned unit developments are found in Section 20-1006, "General Development Standards - Planned Unit Developments," of the Zoning Ordinance. Specific development standards for Planned Commercial Developments are listed in Section 20-1008, "Development Standards - Planned Commercial Developments".
b) Preliminary Development Plan requirements are listed in Section 20-1010, "The Preliminary Development Plan".
Staff Finding - The proposed Preliminary Development Plan provides the necessary documentation as required in Article 10 of the Zoning Regulations as it relates to Preliminary Development Plans. The development plan conforms to the technical development standards and criteria of this article with the exception of peripheral setback reductions. The proposed reductions are discussed in detail in the summary section found at the end of this report.
7) In what respects the plan is or is not in compliance with the requirements for application for tentative approval of the Planned Unit Development.
Section 20-1005, "Development Standards and Criteria," in the Zoning Ordinance states: (a) A plan that is consistent with (1) the "Statement of Objectives for Planned Unit Development," (2) the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City, (3) the development standards set out herein, and (4) any specific rules and regulations for Planned Unit Developments adopted from time to time by the Planning Commission and City Commission and placed on public record in the office of the City Clerk shall be deemed to be qualified for tentative approval. No such rules and regulations shall be revised or added to so as to be applicable to a specific proposal for a Planned Unit Development after an application for tentative approval has been filed by the landowner or his or her agents.”
In general, the Preliminary Development Plan meets the above requirements. The density of the development shall not exceed 12 dwelling units per acre, as approved in the zoning ordinance. Refer to the discussion regarding the proposed reductions in the peripheral setback related to the proposed development found at the end of this report.
Staff Finding - The plan complies with the minimum technical requirements with regard to the drawing and notes.
8) The sufficiency of the terms and conditions proposed to protect the interest of the public and the residents of the Planned Unit Development in the case of a plan that proposes development over a period of years.
Staff Finding - The proposed development will be constructed in phases. The applicant has provided a phasing plan. The infrastructure and parking lot areas are required to be constructed initially and the individual apartment buildings will be constructed by phase. Additional clarification is needed regarding the construction schedule and the development phasing. Staff recommends that a note be provided on the face of the development plan to state that all infrastructure and site improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy of the development.
9) Stormwater detention calculations and storage of excess stormwater drainage as per City Policy.
Staff Finding – The City Stormwater Engineer has approved the proposed drainage study.
The proposed development is intended to be a continuation of the existing multi-family development to the east. The interior access driveways are connected to provide cross circulation. The proposed amenities will accommodate both the existing and proposed multi-family residential tenants. This review is accompanied by the following projects and requests:
1. Z-07-32-04 a rezoning request to amend the density
2. PF-07-21-04 a revised plat to amend utility easements and provide cross access.
3. FDP-07-10-04 a revised final development plan for the Legends at KU, Phase 1 to amend the western parking lot and driveway to provide connection between the existing development and the proposed development.
Proposed Peripheral Reductions
All planned unit developments are required to provide a peripheral setback around the development of a minimum of 30’ in depth. Planned residential developments require a total peripheral setback of 35’. The proposed development includes a request for peripheral setback reductions for the following improvements: 1) A bus stop/mail center building located at the entrance from 24th Place [peripheral reduction from 35’ to 15’] and 2) A peripheral reduction for buildings on the east side adjacent to Phase 1 [peripheral reduction from 35’ to 15].
The proposed development complies with the minimum setbacks along the south and west property lines and provides an extraordinary setback on the west side along with a berm to allow for additional buffering.
Section 20-1007(D) provides
the authority for the Planning Commission to reduce the required peripheral and
building setbacks provided setbacks reduced below 10 feet between structures
must be designed to meet the building code requirements for zero setback.
The proposed setback reductions will not result in building being located closer
than 10’.
The shelter building accommodates a bus pick-up area with a sidewalk from the shelter building directly to the public sidewalk. The mail pick-up area is accessed from the parking area on the south side and is not designed to be accessed from on-street parking from 24th Place. The shelter building is designed in the same manner as the existing building constructed in the first phase. The Planning Commission granted a similar setback reduction for the previous project.
Section 20-1006(i) requires a minimum 30’ peripheral setback for all planned unit developments except that the planning commission may reduce that requirement when “a planned unit development is proposed adjacent to an existing planned unit development which provides the minimum peripheral setback, the planning commission may allow a reduction of the required peripheral setback on the adjacent development as part of their consideration of the preliminary development plan to permit cross-flow between developments of traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) and to permit coordination in site layout and landscaping.” The required peripheral setback is provided along the west property line of the original development (phase 1) located east of subject property.
Proposed Density
Much of the original land use discussion focused on the need to provide adequate public facilities such as streets and other infrastructure as well as the land use scheme and transition through the entire acreage included in the Inverness Park Addition. At the time only the area on the west side of Inverness Drive was developed with single-family uses.
The first part of the 160 acre development included the single-family lots south of the drainage easement. The previous development proposal for the subject property was as an assisted living facility and did not change the overall density of the subject property (presented in 2000). As noted in the traffic study, the proposed land use will result in an increase in traffic as a more conventional multi-family development. However, there are no identified street facility improvements that result from the proposed development. The existing zoning restricted density but not housing type. Staff recommends that the proposed development plan be modified to reduce the density to not exceed 12 dwelling units per acre as was originally recommended.
Utilities and infrastructure
The proposed development plan has been revised to extend the interior sidewalk system to the south to be eventually connected to the future recreation path that will be located along the north side of the creek. The future pedestrian path will meander along the north side of the creek crossing both public and private property. The path connection in the center part of the total development (eastern side within Phase I) does not extend to the property line and should be modified to be extended at least to the property line for continuity. The only drawback of this improvement is that it will lead directly to the park property and end in an area where there are no existing path facilities. There are no immediate plans for improvement to the park path facility. The area for the time-being will remain in its natural state. Staff further recommends the applicant execute an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for the future recreation path improvements.
The proposed development includes both public and private infrastructure improvements for sanitary sewer, municipal water and storm sewer. These plans must be provided to the City for review and approval prior to development of the site. The sanitary sewer is proposed as a private facility. The Public Works Department has indicated that the size of the line is more appropriate as a public sewer line. This would require public improvement plans to be reviewed and approved as well as public inspection of the construction. The applicant has indicated that they are not in favor of this design option and prefer to execute the project privately. Ordinance No. 7743, adopted 2/3/04 says in part “c” “... a private sanitary sewer service line shall serve only one residential dwelling unit or a single commercial or industrial establishment”. The ordinance goes on to say in part “d” that a private line can serve multiple living units if they are served by only one water meter contingent upon written approval obtained from the City Engineer prior to application for a building permit.
Staff recommends that the applicant revise the Preliminary Development Plan accordingly. Municipal water and the storm sewer will likewise require public improvement plans for review and approval as part of the usual construction process.
Conclusion:
While it is not necessary to vote on each waiver, staff has found this practice to be helpful in demonstrating a deliberate action regarding development plans that deviate from the code standards. A separate action for the waivers is listed as follows:
Staff recommends the following approval reducing the peripheral reductions:
1. Approval of a peripheral reduction from 35’ to 15’ for the bus shelter building along 24th Place; and
2. Approval of the peripheral reduction from 35’ to 15’ along the east property line.
If approved, these waivers will be incorporated into the approved development plan as shown.
Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for The Legends at K.U., Phase 2 PRD and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions: