ITEM NO. 6: O-1 & A/PRD-2 TO RO-1B; 17.874 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 6TH STREET AND WEST OF CONGRESSIONAL DRIVE (PGP)
Z-09-42-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 17.874 acres from O-1 (Office) District and A (Agricultural)/PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to RO-1B (Residence-Office) District. The property is generally described as being north of W. 6th Street and west of Congressional Drive. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, L.L.C., for Continuum Associates LTD., contract purchaser. B J Mellmanor Townhouse Apartments, L.L.C., and 6WAK Land Investments, L.L.C., are property owners of record. This item was deferred from the November 17, 2004, Planning Commission meeting.)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request to rezone the subject property to allow use as a retirement facility. He referenced the Use Permitted upon Review approved by the Planning Commission in November. The City Commission had chosen to defer the UPR until this rezoning request could be considered at the same time.
The subject property and the adjacent properties to the east and west were described as vacant and ready for development. It is located near the recently completed improvements to Congressional and Overland.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning, subject the filing of a revised plat showing the access easement across the property modified and retained for use by the property to the west.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
No one was present to represent the applicant.
PUBLIC HEARING
Alan Cowels, President of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said the neighborhood was in strong support of the proposed retirement facility. However, residents were concerned about what other uses would be possible under the requested RO-1B zoning if the retirement facility did not go through.
Gwen Klingenberg, 4900 Colonial Way, shared the neighborhood associations concerns, saying she was afraid apartment units would develop at the site if the retirement facility did not materialize.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Patterson stated for the record that the applicant’s agent had contacted Staff to explain a prior commitment that kept him from attending tonight’s meeting.
Staff responded to questioning that RO-1B was an appropriate zone for the use approved last month with a UPR. A PUD was possible, but Staff supported the applicant’s wish to accomplish the project using conventional zoning. The city was, in general, trying to move away from the PUD system.
Mr. Patterson spoke about the impact of other uses that would be allowed in the requested zoning district. He said it was true that few uses generated les traffic than the proposed retirement facility, but there was no certainty about how much other uses would impact the area. Staff noted that any development would be bound by the nodal plan and the ability of the road network to handle other uses.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Angino said it was fruitless to try to control and predict the future.
Comm. Krebs said the concern expressed by the public seemed to come up regularly. She asked if there was any way, other than that PUD system, to provide assurances that specific projects would take place. The Commission agreed to place this issue on the Parking Lot list.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the rezoning as presented.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Comm. Burress said the neighbor’s concerns about a “bait and switch” were important, but the Commission was not authorized to consider a specific use. The Commission was restricted to a consideration of a zoning district and whether any of the uses in that classification were suitable and supportable by the area. He said that Staff was of the opinion that the road system could handle the traffic generated by other RO-1B uses, and the comprehensive plan called for fairly dense development in this overall area.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the rezoning of 17.874 acres from O-1 & A/PRD-2 to RO-1B and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried 9-1, with Comm.’s Angino, Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Jennings and Lawson voting in favor. Comm. Ermeling voted in opposition.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Comm. Ermeling responded to questioning that she voted in opposition because of the concerns expressed by the neighborhood.