ITEM NO. 11A: M-1 TO PRD-2; 8.24 ACRES; 4500 W. BOB BILLINGS PARKWAY (PGP/SMS)
Z-12-53-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 8.24 acres from M-1 (Research Industrial) District to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District. The property is described as 4500 West Bob Billings Parkway. Submitted by BG Consultants, Inc., for Bella Sera Development, L.L.C., property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 11B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BELLA SERA AT THE PRESERVE; 4500 W. BOB BILLINGS PARKWAY (PGP/SMS)
PDP-12-14-04: Preliminary Development Plan request for Bella Sera at the Preserve. This proposed planned residential development contains 99 units and is approximately 8.24 acres. The property is described as being located at 4500 West Bob Billings Parkway. Submitted by BG Consultants, Inc., for Bella Sera Development, L.L.C., property owner of record.
Items 11A & 11B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the items, explaining the rezoning request would allow a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. He said the applicant was requesting approval of a development plan with 14.2 units per acre.
In response to Study Session questions, Mr. Patterson said about 108 acres of undeveloped land remained of the land zoned for M-1 uses in the Oread Research Park. It was verified that this amount did not include the acreage from the subject request.
Staff recommended approval of both requests with conditions listed in the Staff Reports, including the stipulation of a maximum density of 14.2 units per acre.
Mr. Patterson explained the project involved three condominium buildings to be built in three phases, beginning on the western edge of the subject property. He described the elements of each building, including the number of bedrooms and the amount and location of parking. Mr. Patterson noted that the project provided significantly more common open space than was required and pointed out the steep slopes in the southern section of the property.
Staff commented on the number of stories in each building and the comparative heights of the existing buildings in the surrounding area. In response to questions, Mr. Patterson said HORIZON 2020 provided some guidance about building height, but building height in PRD’s could be modified according to the Planning Commission’s discretion.
Access for each building was shown, including the shared access between the westernmost building and the existing police facility. This shared access would require approval of a periphery setback waiver from 35’ to 0’ along the portions of the parking area along the west property line. A second waiver was needed to reduce the periphery setback along the southern property line to accommodate proposed entryway features.
Chairman Haase asked Staff to provide specific justification for the requested waivers. Mr. Patterson said the first waiver was justified because it allowed the property to share an existing access point to easily accessible parking. The second waiver was justified because it would allow for the provision of the entryway features proposed as part of the development plan.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Jes Santaularia, Managing Member of Diversified Concepts LLC, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He introduced other members of the management team for this project, which he said was just as important to their group as the Southeast Area Plan was to other individuals.
Mr. Santaularia described the surrounding area, noting the location of drainage and utility easements. He said the Commission’s previous discussion about industrial land uses had been interesting because this area had been zoned industrially for several years, but had not been developed because it faced issues (specifically topography) that made industrial development especially challenging. Mr. Santaularia spoke about working with Staff to overcome some of these issues for this project while meeting the city’s regulations. He noted many design elements of the project:
Mr. Santaulauria said this development would have little impact on the existing road system, but would make a “large annual contribution to the tax coffers”. He referenced a recent newspaper article about the city’s intent to study the cost of development and said this project would reduce these costs because roads and infrastructure were already in place.
Cecil Kingsley, BG Consultants, agreed that the topography of the site was challenging, but held no unforeseen development issues. He said the site had been researched thoroughly and the developer clearly understood the underlying materials and what this would require for building purposes.
Rich Kaplan explained his company had provided several market studies in the Lawrence area, and said this project incorporated many planning and development principles from the concepts of SmartGrowth and New Urbanism. He outlined some of these principles, which he said gave people more new choices about where and how they wanted to live:
PUBLIC HEARING
Betty Lichtwardt said the Land Use Committee of the League of Women Voters had considered the application but had no formal position on the request. She expressed her personal concern that this proposal would reduce the inventory of industrially-zoned land. She understood Staff did not consider the reduction contrary to the comprehensive plan because of the small amount of land involved, but was concerned that piecemeal reduction of industrial areas would add up over time. She said this issue was not given adequate attention in the Staff Report.
Ms. Lichtwardt said there was additional concern about the predictability of PRD zoning and that the zoning would stand even if this development plan were abandoned. She asked the Commission to consider applying conditions to the zoning, not just the development plan.
Ms. Lichtwardt was also concerned that the first phase involved constructing the tallest building in the development. She asked what would happen to the remainder of the property if the project were discontinued after construction of only one building. She suggested the developer begin at the eastern edge of the property with the shortest building.
Ms. Lichtwardt referenced the proposed benefit district and said the developer should bear the full cost of that street light and geometric improvement, since it was this development that made these improvements necessary.
Ms. Lichtwardt said her final concern was that this would be the tallest building in the viewscape and would become a landmark in consequence.
In response to questioning, Ms. Lichtwardt explained she would like conditions applied to the zoning that would ensure that, if this development plan were abandoned, a new development plan for the same property would have to conform to the same density and building types. She said the Commission did not typically remember they had the ability to do this.
Ms. Lichtwardt said she did not know the heights of any other buildings in the area, but she believed that no other structures were close in height to the proposed Phase One building.
Wally Emerson, area resident, echoed the concerns of the previous speaker. He made several additional comments:
The Commission discussed the height of various area buildings, establishing that no one present could recall the exact height of these structures.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Santaulauria said he would respond to specific comments from the public at the Commission’s request. Regarding the height of the building in Phase One, he said top of the atrium would be approximately 1’ below the 1036’ power poles bordering the eastern edge of the property. The bulk of the building would be well below this height.
Mr. Santaulauria referenced the letter of support from Mike McGrew, whose family held the nearby land preserve. It was suggested that the proposal was the best use for the subject property and more desirable than any potential industrial use.
Mike Edmonson, who had developed many homes on the property adjacent to the east, spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the project. He said it was often difficult for neighbors to accept change, and that he hoped to live in this area as well.
The applicant’s representatives estimated the sale price of the units in this project between $200,000 - $700,000.
It was discussed that the neighbors would like the shortest building, the one along the eastern property line, constructed first. The applicant said this was not possible because the tallest, western building would be located at the main entrance and would contain many of the amenities for the entire development. This location was chosen for the tallest building because it was the largest flat portion of the property and judged to be the best place for the development’s common areas.
The applicant’s representatives expressed no opposition to the addition of conditions to the rezoning.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
In response to comments from the public, Staff said it was possible to apply some of the additional conditions discussed to the rezoning. However, it was Staff’s opinion that the conditions provided in the Staff Report provided adequate protection for the neighborhood and no additional conditions were needed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Ms. Finger responded to specific questioning that, with the conditions in the Staff Report, the Commission would retain the same leverage for considering a future (replacement) development plan as they would with any new PRD request. Comm. Burress said he believed the Commission had been advised differently in the past. He asked about applying conditions to restrict building height. He pointing out that projects facing limited buildable area due to their topography had to build higher while staying within their density restrictions. He suggested conditioning the zoning to a specific building height so that no future PRD for this property could build any higher than proposed by the current development plan. If this plan was not constructed, the property should revert to M-1 zoning.
Staff explained that it was not possible to create a situation where zoning would “revert automatically” if the PRD were abandoned. Since rezonings were published as an ordinance, it required another public hearing, action and publication of another ordinance to change the zoning again.
Comm. Eichhorn was concerned about placing additional conditions on this rezoning, asking if the Commission intended to do the same for all rezonings.
Comm. Burress said he would like at least one additional condition placed on the rezoning to limit building height to no more than 1035’ above sea level.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 11A
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the rezoning of 8.24 acres from M-1 to PRD-2 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 revised conditions:
1. Maximum of 14.2 dwelling units per net residential acre;
2. Maximum building height of 1035’ above sea level; and
3. Approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for Bella Sera at the Preserves.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was suggested that this plan had many elements that would be difficult to recreate if another development plan were to come forward in the future.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to add another condition to the motion limiting buildable area to the square footage shown on the current Preliminary Development Plan [PDP-12-14-04].
Motion to amend carried 5-3, with Comm.’s Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase and Krebs voting in favor. Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn and Jennings voted in opposition.
Motion on the floor was to approve the rezoning of 8.24 acres from M-1 to PRD-2 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 re-revised conditions:
1. Maximum of 14.2 dwelling units per net residential acre;
2. Maximum building height of 1035’ above sea level;
3. Buildable area is restricted to the total square footage shown in PDP-12-14-04; and
4. Approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for Bella Sera at the Preserves.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
Item 11B
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve two waivers as presented:
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Bella Sera at the Preserves 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:
a. Modify the density calculation to show the 99 dwelling units and 14.2 dwelling units per Net Residential Acre.
2. Provision of the following notes on the face of the Development Plan:
a. “Public improvement plans will be submitted to Public Works before the Final Development Plan is filed at the Register of Deeds;”
b. “We hereby dedicate to the City of Lawrence the right to regulate any construction over the area designated as common open space, open air recreation area, and non-encroachable area and to prohibit any construction within said areas and spaces inconsistent with the approved use or enjoyment of residents, lessees and owner of the Planned Unit Development.” (Per Section 20-1010(b)(18);
c. “The maximum residential density will be 14.2 Dwelling Units per Net Residential Acre” and
d. Include a statement as to the form of ownership proposed to own and maintain the common open space, recreation facilities, non-encroachable area and any other area within the area proposed to be developed that is to be retained primarily for the exclusive use and benefit of the residents, lessee and owners of the Planned Unit Development. (Per Section 20-1010(b)(16).
3. Provision of the following requirements of the Stormwater Engineer:
a. Revise the east entrance to prevent site stormwater discharge into Bob Billings Parkway;
b. Provide a DE (through replat or separate instrument) for the stream channel along the east boundary. In lieu of hydraulic calculations, provide this DE to enclose the 904 contour;
c. Show all on-site storm sewer pipes, structures, discharge points and scour protection; and
d. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be submitted and approved for this project prior to any construction activity, including soil disturbance, removal of vegetation, and any release of building permits.
4. Within 15 days after approval of the Preliminary Development Plan by the City Commission, the landowner shall file with the Douglas County Register of Deeds a statement concerning the Preliminary Development Plan per Section 20-1012; and
5. Execute an Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for Traffic Signal and Geometric Improvements to Bob Billings Parkway and Inverness Drive.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.