ITEM NO 11A:          ANNEXATION OF 54 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY (NORTH OF JUDY’S JUNCTION) (SLD)

 

A-01-01-05:  Annexation request for approximately 54 acres, located northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction).  Submitted by Bob Voth for Windover Community at Lawrence, LLC, property owners of record.

 

RESUME PUBLIC HEARING:

 

ITEM NO 11B:          A TO RS-2; 9.12 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY (NORTH OF JUDY’S JUNCTION) (SLD)

 

Z-01-05-05:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 9.12 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District.  The property is generally described as being located northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction).  Submitted by Bob Voth for Windover Community at Lawrence, LLC, property owners of record.

 

ITEM NO 11C:          A TO RM-2; 40 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY (NORTH OF JUDY’S JUNCTION) (SLD)

 

Z-01-06-05:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 40 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District.  The property is generally described as being located northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction).  Submitted by Bob Voth for Windover Community at Lawrence, LLC, property owners of record.

 

ITEM NO 11D:          A TO RM-D; 4.6 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY (NORTH OF JUDY’S JUNCTION) (SLD)

 

 

Z-01-07-05:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 4.6 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District.  The property is generally described as being located northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction).  Submitted by Bob Voth for Windover Community at Lawrence, LLC, property owners of record.

 

Items 11A – 11D were discussed simultaneously.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Day relayed the applicant’s request for direction regarding how much time he would be allotted for his presentation.

 

Ms. Day hoped to address in her presentation a comment made earlier in the evening that this project was associated to a rezoning on the other side of Highway K-10.

 

Staff showed where the subject property was located on the west side of Highway K-10, showing also the Corps property and land recently acquired by USD 497.  This overall area has only recently been considered in terms of development.  She explained that access was provided along the frontage road parallel to Highway K-10, stopping short north of the adjacent commercial property.

 

Ms. Day indicated the proximity of existing utilities, noting that both water and sewer lines would need to be extended to the subject property.  She also showed the watershed in which the subject property was located.

 

Staff then clarified that the applicant’s intent for the RM-2 zoning portion of the request was to provide small-lot, modular residential units at an economical cost.  The intent was not for conventional multi-family development of higher density, so it was not similar in to the proposal east of Highway K-10.  Lots with a more conventional size and single-family housing type were proposed for the northern section of this project.

 

It was noted that the proposal was in the UGA, but in Service Area 3, where there was not a lot of information about service provision or land uses.

 

The applicant provided Staff with a concept plan to help in understanding the proposed mix of densities and housing types.  The concept plan was not a formal submittal and was not evaluated as such.

 

Ms. Day noted the surrounding uses, which were mainly agricultural with a few rural residences scattered throughout.  The subject area also abutted the Corps of Engineers’ lake property.

 

Staff had investigated water source issues in response to Study Session questions, but had been unable to reach the City’s Stormwater Engineer for comment about the ultimate flood level of Clinton Lake or the potential impact of this development on the downstream watershed.  Comments in the Staff Report about the stormwater and watersheds reflected previous City Staff discussions about water runoff and quality issues. 

 

The Commission asked Staff to address the possibility of achieving this project as a Planned Unit Development (PUD).  Ms. Day said this concept was discussed, but not at any level of detail.  Staff’s review focused more on how the proposal related to the Comprehensive Plan, finding a challenge in balancing the competing priorities of discouraging leapfrog development and encouraging affordable housing.

 

Staff’s recommendation to the applicant two years ago had been to initiate with the Commission discussions about the competing value statements in the Comprehensive Plan before moving ahead with project.  Early work on the new Development Code had begun at that time and it was suggested that the new code would provide a more suitable zoning district for this kind of development.  The applicant had chosen to proceed with a conventional zoning request based on the existing zoning regulations.

 

Staff was not prepared to state at this time which of the proposed new zoning districts would be most suitable for this project.

 

Staff recommended denial of the request, finding the proposal engaging interesting but premature.  Ms. Day was asked to summarize the reasons for this recommendation.  She cited the following:

• Existing conflicts in HORIZON 2020 between leapfrog development and affordable housing
• Need for a true area plan looking at the overall watershed, especially since this proposal would extend into new water shed areas
• Need for more detailed information about the location of collector and arterial streets
• Need for an engineering analysis on the downstream impacts on wastewater, including the actual generation of waste, timing and how it relates to general capacity

 

Staff was asked to explain why there was concern about leapfrog development with this project, when a different development (Final Plat) was approved previously across the SLT.  Ms. Day responded that this request involved an annexation request, which required the extension of City services.  In Staff’s opinion, the City was not yet ready to extend services to this section of Service Area 3.  Comm. Krebs noted that Staff was aware of the steps needed to pave the way for extension of services.  She asked if it would be appropriate to defer the requests and direct Staff to begin work on these necessary elements.  Ms. Day said that was an option and had been done with the Farmland NE development (Re: Southeast Area Plan).  However, this proposal would require long-range planning activities that could not begin until at least 2006, based on the existing workload of the City’s long-range and area planning staff.

 

It was clarified that this was the first development request received for Service Area 3.

 

Staff was asked to compare this development with Red Tail Ridge.  Ms. Day said Red Tail Ridge was a rural development in the UGA and involved zoning and platting requests but not annexation or extension of City services.  This development would require urban services.  Staff did not have information about the estimated cost of extending the necessary services to this property.

 

Staff responded to questioning that the county commercial area to the southeast (Judy’s Junction) was expected to remain a commercial area.

 

It was discussed that the needed area plan would logically be bounded by the lake to the south and 15^th Street (N1500 Road extended) to the north.  East-west boundaries should be based on the watershed and would likely result in a narrow (linear) plan area.

 

The applicant was allowed 20 minutes for their presentation.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mark White, urban planner and attorney, spoke representing Wyndover Communities at Lawrence.  He introduced the technical team present to speak on behalf of the proposal

Mr. White said there was a documented need for affordable housing, supported by stated city policy, and this project answered that need.

 

Regarding the term “affordability”, Mr. White provided information on the price point of the proposed units in comparison with HUD housing cost requirements and average Lawrence housing prices.  The project hoped to deliver housing in the range of $172,000.

 

Bob Voth, Chairman of Wyndover Communities, explained the property was purchased in 1988 for immediate development.  For various reasons, the development was both delayed and modified to the proposed use as affordable housing and a team was put together to design the project.

 

Mr. Voth said similar projects were being approved near Wichita in a short amount of time, proving what could be done if the community was truly dedicated to providing affordable housing.

 

Mr. Voth commented on the frequent policy statement that the City supported the concept of affordable housing, but said it seemed that very little was ever done to implement that policy.

 

Mr. Voth explained that, because the land was purchased in 1988, it was still possible to develop the area with affordable housing.  However, the window of opportunity was brief, and rising appraised values would soon make this use impossible.  Mr. Voth said the developer planned to take no land profit, only the single profit from the house sale to emphasize the affordability concept.

 

Robert Whitman, Gould Evans Associates, gave an overview of the process for developing the plan as presented today.  Meetings with area residents and property owners were held to gather input on the proposal.  Proposed housing design and architectural details were based on preferences expressed at these meetings, taking into account site constraints and the affordability issue.

 

Mr. Whitman pointed out the eastern landscape easement along Highway K-10, intended to provide a buffer and increase open space.   A system of interior trails was also proposed to provide residents with access to greenspace and to the state park.

 

Mr. Whitman described how varying housing types would be used to internalize density transitions and minimize the impact of this development on the surrounding area.  He said the overall density of the entire project was about 4.62 units per acre.

 

Charlie Steinbacher, EBH Engineers, said his firm joined the development team in 2004, beginning with updating utility studies.  Based on the new information, the cost of extending the water lines would be about $175,000-$200,000. 

 

Sanitary sewer extension would be more challenging.  The Sewer Master Plan divided the area into two drainage basins, with a lift station proposed adjacent to the Corps property in the next 15 years.

 

Mr. Steinbacher proposed providing a smaller lift station for the development until the city’s lift station was built.  He described other elements for providing adequate capacity and pressure for the development.

 

Mr. White summarized reasons for supporting the proposal:

• The proposal was consistent with the HORIZON 2020 goal of providing affordable housing, as defined in the supplemental data
• Consistent with City’s design objectives of traditional
• Provides substantial greenspace and green infrastructure
• Developed proactively in cooperation with city officials area residents and property owners
• Consistent with City’s timing objectives – not a strict policy that Service Area 1 be completely developed before beginning development in Service Area 3
• There is no opportunity for a project like this in Service Area 1

 

Mr. White outlined reasons the applicant did not feel an area plan was needed here:

• City loses opportunity to get affordable housing on this site by delaying development now – will end up as high-end, market-rate housing
• Developer already worked proactively with residents and city
• Proposal is consistent with low-density objectives of the surrounding area

 

Mr. White responded to questions from the Commission:

• The applicant’s main concern with an area plan was the delay in the development process. 
• An area plan would have to be done within 6 months to meet the financial needs of the applicant. 
• The applicant would be willing to pay for an outside consultant to do the area plan.
• The provided concept plan was open to revision to provide more connectivity to the surrounding area.
• The 3500 square feet estimated per side of the duplex units was the lot size, not the building size.

 

Comm. Burress stated his appreciation for the supporting data defining the applicant’s use of the term “affordable housing”.

 

PUBLIC HEARING – rezoning requests only

No member of the public spoke on this item.

 

CLOSING COMMENTS

There were no closing comments for the applicant or staff.

 

 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSION

Comm. Krebs said the Commission “dreamed” of projects like this and she hoped the concerns described could be dealt with to allow this project to proceed.

 

Comm. Jennings noted that the project provided no transition to the commercial development to the south.  Expansion of the commercial uses would be hampered by requiring 100% of a transition to occur on the relatively small commercial property.

 

Staff responded to several questions:

• Given the time constraints on developing an area plan, it would be reasonable to ask the City Commission to hire an outside party to develop the area plan based on the City’s perspective. 
• Utilities could be extended at the developer’s expense, but care must be taken to ensure the extension was consistent with the City’s Master Plan.  Also, capacity designated for this development needed to be studied to ensure it did not reduce the capacity for other developments.
• Substantial downstream analysis was needed before opening a new drainage basin, because that opened up the entire area, not just the property involved in this request.
• Traffic impacts were typically studied as part of the during the subdivision plat review.

 

The Commission discussed various issues:

• Should the streets be stubbed to connect in the future to new adjacent developments?
• Black & Veatch would do the downstream analysis, but there is currently no funding for the study.  Should the developer have to pay for the downstream analysis?
• The nearest school is about 4 miles away and across a major arterial.  Is this a temporary situation?  Will a new school eventually be built in this area? If so, when?

 

Comm. Burress said the premature nature of the project was the only way it could work, because land values were still low enough to make affordable housing a viable use for the property.  He asked if there was a way to complete the process that Staff could support.  He also asked if it would be possible to do the area plan in 6 months.  Comm. Ermeling pointed out this was contrary to the Commission’s usual methods.  She expressed concern at being forced to make planning decisions without the normal full review.  Comm. Burress responded that the City’s planning went too slowly because there was not enough funding behind it.

 

Craig White responded to questioning that the similar projects he referred to earlier were completed in Hesston and Hillsborough, Kansas.

 

Comm. Lawson said the concept was supportable, but it was atypical to see several Planning Commissioners eager to move ahead rapidly.  He was not comfortable sacrificing a prudent planning approach, going against clear direction from the City Commission that area plans were required for new growth and development.  Comm. Krebs said this was the kind of project the Commission “dreamed” of getting, but she could not support it without an area plan.  Nor did she advocate expediting the area planning process. 

 

Comm. Burress asked what was wrong with expediting the process.  Ms. Finger cautioned that there was no guarantee an area plan would have results favorable to the applicant’s development or timing.  Mr. Voth responded to questioning that paying for the study without knowing the results would be a prudent wager if the cost were $100,000 or less, but he would prefer to have some agreements in place beforehand.

 

It was noted that an attempt was made to present the issue to the City Commission.  The applicant was told to go through the regular planning channels.

 

There was discussion about directing Staff to bring forward a proposal in 1-2 months for financing the area plan. It was suggested that there were too many unknowns at the outset of an area plan to expect Staff to bring a proposal in 1-2 months.

 

Vice-Chair Riordan stated that the provision of affordable housing was a “trump card”, but did it trump all the policies that were in conflict with this proposal? 

 

The Commission discussed deferring the rezonings, but moving the annexation forward for the City Commission to consider the implications of “jumping” the City limits across Highway K-10. 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Item 11A

Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Riordan to forward the annexation request to the City Commission with the understanding that the Planning Commission viewed the property and the request as having unique characteristics that might warrant special consideration.

 

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

It was verified that the wording “special consideration” was deliberate, and that the motion was not intended to include a recommendation regarding the annexation.  

 

Several Commissioners indicated their intended vote:

• Comm. Eichhorn - opposed because it was the Planning Commission’s job to make recommendations
• Comm. Burress - opposed because he would prefer to give the City Commission stronger direction to enter into an innovative agreement with an outside consultant at the applicant’s expense
• Vice-Chair Riordan – in favor because he wanted to know if the City was interested in this development

 

Chairman Haase said he did not take issue with the motion as stated, noting that the record would reflect multiple points of view.

 

 

ACTIONS TAKEN

Item 11A

Motion on the floor was to forward the annexation request to the City Commission with the understanding that the Planning Commission viewed the property and the request as having unique characteristics that might warrant special consideration.

          Motion carried 6-3, with Comm.’s Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor.  Comm.’s Burress, Eichhorn and Jennings voted in opposition.

 

Items 11B – 11D

Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Lawson to table the items:

• Z-01-05-05; 9.12 acres from A to RS-2
• Z-01-06-05; 40 acres from A to RM-2
• Z-01-07-05; 4.6 acres A to RM-D

 

                    Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.