PC minutes 11/14/05

ITEM NO. 15:           RO-2 TO C-1; 0.17 ACRE; NORTHEAST CORNER OF 13TH STREET & HASKELL AVENUE (LAP)

 

Z-09-60-05:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 0.17 acre from RO-2 (Residence-Office District) to C-1 (Inner-Neighborhood Commercial District).  The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of E. 13th Street & Haskell Avenue [1246 Haskell].  Submitted by Greg Polk, for Janine Colter, contract purchaser.  Polk & Polk LC are the property owners of record.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Lisa Pool introduced the request and described the surrounding land uses.  She indicated that staff had made a recommendation for approval of the requested C-1 zoning based upon the findings in the staff report.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Greg Polk, the property owner, introduced Janine Colter, the contract purchaser, and indicated that she intended to move her hair care salon from downtown to this location.  She said that she had a number of clients in this neighborhood and thought this would be a convenient location.  They were available for questions.

 

Comm. Burress asked if the owner had considered rezoning to a PCD-1 with a single use.  Staff stated that multiple waivers and variances would be required with a PCD-1 zoning for this site.  Comm. Krebs asked what the new code would allow and what the current uses would permit.  Staff responded that the RO-2 zoning permits single-family or duplex residential uses or professional offices.  Comm. Krebs asked if those office uses would have a client base.  Staff indicated they could.  With the proposed draft development code, this type of use could be allowed as a home occupation if it didn’t include off-site employees.

 

The Commission asked what the difference was between C-1 allowed uses and RO-2 permitted uses.  It was suggested that a hair salon is a service delivery type of use similar to many of the office uses allowed.  Comm. Haase asked if a hair salon could be permitted with a UPR since it was similar to other service providers.  Staff indicated that uses permitted by a UPR are specifically identified in Use Group 7 and there is not a similar use in that category to a hair salon.

 

Comm. Burress indicated that if it were zoned a PCD-1 with only one use allowed, the property would need to be rezoned in the future to change the use of the property from a hair care salon.  Ms. Colter indicated that she had no other intention than to move her salon from its current location on Massachusetts Street.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Richard Heckler, 1217 Prospect, discussed changes the current owner made to the property that deviate from the approved site plan.  He cited violations such as installation of the garage door, construction of a wider sidewalk adjacent to the building, minimal landscaping, and use of the property by a pest control company.  He said that the site included a non-conforming commercial use for years.  When it was vacated several years ago, the neighborhood agreed to support office uses as a compromise.  He indicated that he thought the owner wanted to circumvent the process by rezoning the property.  He asked the Commission to recommend denial of the commercial zoning request.

 

Comm. Burress indicated that the Planning Commission does not do enforcement and it was important to put the past behind them and look to the future.  He asked the neighborhood if it would be better if the owner sold the property and made a PCD for a salon. Mr. Heckler stated that it might be better.

 

Michael Almon, 1311 Prairie Avenue, was the Brook Creek Neighborhood Land Use Chair.  He indicated that this request was not new urbanism, with a walkable service area.  It was just spot zoning – commercial in the middle of a residential neighborhood.  He said this is just one lot that happens to have a commercial past.  He indicated it had been a non-conforming use until 1999 when the owner died.  He said that the neighborhood had met with the new owners in 2002 and reiterated that the resulting RO-2 zoning was a compromise agreement. He would like to see the property revert to a residential use.

 

Comm. Riordan asked if Mr. Almon anticipated a significant difference in traffic generation from a salon rather than office uses.  Mr. Almon indicated there would be an increase and said this rezoning would be a toehold to future commercial requests in the area.  This would escalate to set precedence for future rezonings.

 

Beth Anne Mansur, 1217 Prospect, is the Vice President of Brook Creek Neighborhood Association.  She said that BCNA was concerned that this was the first step to expanded commercial uses in the neighborhood.  She asked what safeguards the Planning Commission could provide.  Comm. Riordan indicated that the Commission cannot guarantee that any rezoning won’t change in the future, but that the Commission does try to be consistent in its decision-making

 

Ryanne Kiam, a client of the prospective buyer, spoke to Ms. Colter’s character and integrity as a business owner who was dedicated to the Lawrence community.  She has no intent to develop the property to a more intense use than the proposed salon.

 

Craig Comstock, 1315 Haskell, echoed the BCNA comments.  He indicated that he did not mind the salon, but was concerned about the precedence for more commercial uses in the area.

 

Ms. Colter indicated that she had just received the BCNA letter today.  She was not aware of the past history, but said her intent is to only open a salon on the property.  She said safety issues at her downtown location had increased and had led her to seek a new location where she can conveniently serve her clients. She does not want to be penalized for the past history of the site.

 

 

 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Burress asked if zoning can be conditioned on an owner.  Staff indicated that was not a possibility in today’s code.

 

Comm. Ermeling asked if the uses in RO-2 could be expanded to include a salon.  Staff indicated that it could not be considered a similar use since it is already identified in another use group.  It cannot be categorized as an office use when it is listed elsewhere in the code as a commercial use.

 

Comm. Lawson indicated that he thought staff had provided a good recommendation that limits potential commercial uses.

 

Comm. Krebs asked staff to list the permitted uses in C-1.  Ms. Pool listed the uses identified in Use Group 11. 

 

Comm. Haase made the observation that RO-2 allows a vet clinic, so it permits pet grooming but not people grooming.  He asked staff what would be involved in a text amendment to add hair care salon to the RO-2 district.  Ms. Finger indicated that staff would need to look at the purpose statement for the district and then lay out a timeline of approximately six months to amend the code.

 

Comm. Krebs indicated that after hearing the permitted uses in the C-1 district, she agreed with Comm. Lawson.  The number of uses is relatively limited and not intrusive to the neighborhood.

 

Comm. Burress said that if the Commission wanted to consider the neighborhood association concern, the only action that satisfied all parties is a single-use PCD-1.

 

Comm. Lawson expressed reservation about the position a single-use PCD-1 zoning puts the potential owner in for the future.  Resale of the property will be tenuous.  He stated that the staff report evaluates the request and recommends rezoning.  He said the Commission should not consider the historical issues with past owners and they should not put additional burdens on a small business owner.

 

Comm. Riordan observed that the small site and building will further limit the potential intense uses.

 

Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Ermeling to use the Lesser Change Table to recommend rezoning to PCD-1 with only one use (hair salon), based on the staff report and neighborhood concerns.

 

Comm. Lawson indicated he was opposed to this motion.  He said it created a circuitous route and questioned the timeframe needed before the business could open.  Ms. Finger estimated it would take at least six months to receive preliminary and final development plan approvals and suggested the City Commission may not approve the rezoning without an associated plan.  Comm. Lawson added that there would be additional costs to prepare those plans.

 

Comm. Haase asked if it would be faster to amend the code.  Ms. Finger indicated it would take perhaps 30 days less time than the PCD-1 process.

 

Comm. Krebs asked what kind of timeline would be involved before the business could open if the property was rezoned to C-1.  Staff indicated with preparation of an ordinance and approval of a site plan, it might be the end of February.

 

Comm. Harris asked if they could include the office uses permitted in the RO-2 district with the Lesser Change Table to limit a PCD-1 to a salon use. Staff stated this is an option.

 

Comm. Krebs reminded the Commission that if the motion on the table is denied, there will still be a need for a positive motion.

 

Comm. Haase reiterated his concern with the precedence of endorsing a non-conforming commercial use.  He said the Commission could allow the salon use in the RO-2 District with a text amendment.

 

ACTION TAKEN

 

Motion to recommend PCD-1 with a limitation to only permit salons fails, 1-8 (Comm. Burress voting for the motion).

 

Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Lawson to recommend approval of C-1 based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report.

 

          Motion carried, 5-4 (Comm. Burress, Ermeling, Haase and Harris opposed).