PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT

Regular Agenda -Public Hearing Item

PC Staff Report

10/22/07

ITEM NO. 6B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OREAD INN; 618 W 12^TH ST (SLD)

PDP-07-03-07: Preliminary Development Plan for Oread Inn, located at 618 W 12^th Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Triple T, LLC, property owner of record.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for Oread Inn based on the findings presented in the staff report and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:

1. Approval of the following waivers and reductions:
1. Area reduction from 2 acres to .73 acres
2. Waiver to allow direct access to a local street.
3. Yard Reductions along the north side to a minimum of 21’ rear/peripheral yard setback;
4. Yard Reductions along the east side to 2’ side/peripheral yard setback;
5. Yard Reductions along the south side to a minimum of 23’ front/peripheral yard setback;
6. Yard Reductions along the west side to a minimum of 2’ exterior side/peripheral yard setback;
7. Off-street parking to a minimum of 165 spaces as shown on the plan dated 09/10/07.
2. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to include the following notes and changes:
1. Provision of an exhibit of the approved waivers and reductions to be attached to the Preliminary Development Plan.
2. Provision of a note on the face of the plan that states that the terrace areas provide common open space for the development and shall not be enclosed without approval of a revised Preliminary Development Plan and approval of reduction in the required open space provisions as applicable.
3. Note and show the required off-street parking based on the applicable code of 1 space per 200 NSF.
4. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan stating that a detailed list of use restrictions shall be shown and submitted with a Final Development Plan.
5. Provision of a note that establishes a time limit for organized activities within the terrace areas to not exceed 11:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 A.M. on weekends (Friday and Saturday nights).
3. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan per the City Stromwater Engineer’s approval that shows:
1. Show the contour lines to accurately reflect the elevations of the site.
2. Specify that all curb inlets will be constructed per City storm sewer standard details.
4. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development to show the following changes to the pedestrian pathway circulation adjacent to the proposed development as follows
1. Removal of the angled crossing through 12^th Street
2. Provision of a 90 degree crossing at the corner of 12^th Street and Oread and the corner of the development.
3. And extension of the sidewalk through the driveway along the current alignment
4. Show the existing sidewalk extended along Oread Avenue along the west side of the street.

Reason for Request:		Proposed mixed use residential and commercial development.
KEY POINT · Project is proposed as a redevelopment of existing commercial and multi-family development within the Oread Neighborhood. · Oread Neighborhood has demonstrated support of the project through multiple neighborhood meetings. · Issues identified to consider as part of the September Planning Commission Hearing: o Off-street parking requirements and provision; applicant uses a mix of old and new code standards o Use restrictions; None are proposed, some uses may be inappropriate for site such as drive-through o Waivers for reduction in area requirements; subject property is less than the minimum 2-acre requirement o Waivers for reduction in setback requirements; setback reductions are needed based on the size of the proposed building limited by the size of the property o Waivers for location of PUD not adjacent to a collector or arterial; subject property is located in high traffic area with proximity to collector and arterial access, both 12^th Street and Indiana Street are local streets. o Determination of appropriateness for height; additional 8 feet of setback is required for each story over three stories of building height. Maximum building height is not specified. o Waiver for reduction in open space requirements; building size maximizes the site and does not provide the required open space. [Determined that open space terraces may be applied toward requirements.] o Public Improvement Plans related to the development; site shows off-site improvements to public street and the addition of pedestrian crossings in the area. o Impact/benefit for Oread Neighborhood; public comment required to address this issue. [Public Comment received establishes support for concept of plan with concerns regarding height] o Impact/benefit for Community; public comment required to address this issue.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER · Compliance with zoning code prior to July 2006. · Appropriate uses and restrictions per 20-1004 (b)(2) · Use of terrace areas to be applied toward required 20% open space standards per 20-1006 (g) and 20-1008 (B) · Request includes reductions and waivers for the following: o Minimum area required for PUD is 2 acres per 20-1003 (b) o direct access to a major thoroughfare or collector as shown on the City’s comprehensive plan per 20-1006 o Yard and peripheral setback reductions on all sides per 20-1006 (i) o Maximum height and additional setback of 8’ per each floor above three stories per 20-1008
ASSOCIATED CASES/OTHER ACTION REQUIRED · Z-07-13-07; CN1 and RM32 to PCD-2 · DR-07-93-07; HRC considered the project on August 16 and September 20, 2007; Request Appeal forwarded to the City Commission to be scheduled. · Final Development Plan · Final Plat (dedication of easements for access and utility) · Public improvement plans for off-site improvements.
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING Refer to rezoning report for list of communications
General information
Current Zoning and Land Use:	CN1 (Inner Neighborhood Commercial) & RM32 (Multi-Dwelling Residential); existing commercial establishments and apartment dwellings
Surrounding Zoning:	The subject property is comprised of several properties. The immediate area is surrounding by RM32 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) in all directions. Uses include apartments, single-family homes as well as a church and university property to the west and south. Subject property located within proximity to Hancock Historic district, National Register of Historic Places, Oread Historic district, Register of Historic Kansas Places, and the Jane A. Snow Residence, National Register of Historic Places and the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
Project Summary: This proposed project is a redevelopment of multiple lots that include existing commercial buildings and residential apartment units that will be demolished. A new multi-story building that includes seven stories as viewed from the front on 12^th Street to include 74 guest rooms, 11,000 SF of restaurant and retail space and two floors of condo units or extended stay suites. The hotel is scheduled to include reception rooms and other ancillary hotel amenities such as pool, weight rooms, and similar activities. Parking for the hotel is proposed by providing three and a half stories of below ground parking in a garage structure. Another significant feature of the project is the use of terraces and outdoor areas on most levels of the building.

Site Summary
Number of Lots:	1144 Indiana [former Yellow Sub] .162 acres 618 W. 12 Street [Crossing] .204 acres 1142 Indiana [residence/apartment] .097 acres 1140 Indiana [apartment building] .269 acres Proposed to be re-platted as a single lot.
Gross Area:	.746 acres
Rights-of-way:	No new right-of-way proposed
Easements:	Proposed easement vacation through existing lots and new easements around peripheral of property to provide utility service. Cross access easements on abutting properties proposed for fire access as needed
Building Size	186,953 total gross square feet including terraces and a three and a half level parking garage below grade.
Number of Buildings	1
Number dwelling units	Proposed 26 one and two bedroom condo units on floors 6 and 7 possible at maximum density of 35 units per acre.
Hotel Space	72,786 GSF 74 rooms and ancillary uses [54,589 NSF]
Retail Space	4,000 GSF [3,000 NSF]
Restaurant Space	7,000 GSF [4,900 NSF] [Estimated Occupancy per Fire 348 persons]
Condo Units	26 total units with 1 to 2 bedrooms [not to exceed total 30 bedrooms]
Open Space Required	20% per 20-1008 (B) pre 7/1/06 code 6,499 SF
Open Space Provided	4,493 SF excludes roof/terrace areas.
Off-Street Parking Required	320 spaces at 1/200 for non-residential uses and 1.5 spaces per unit for residential units.
Off-Street Parking Provided	165 spaces

Off Street Parking Requirement
Proposed Use	PCD Old Code	Old Code Conventional	New Code Conventional	Proposed by applicant
Hotel 74 rooms 30 employees (48,281 GSF)	241spaces 1/200 NSF per PCD	89 spaces 1/bedroom + 1 per 2 employees	94 spaces 1/bedroom + 1 per 1.5 employees	94 spaces 1/bedroom + 1 per 1.5 employees
Retail Space (4,000 GSF) 3,000 NSF	15 spaces 1/200 NSF per PCD	15 spaces 1/200 NSF	20 spaces 1/200 GSF	15 spaces 1/200 NSF
Restaurant Space 348 occupancy est. 7 staff (est) (7,000 GSF) 4,900 NSF	25 spaces 1/200 NSF per PCD	115 spaces 1/3 occupancy	122 spaces 1/3 occupancy + 1 per employee	13 spaces at 50% use 25 spaces appropriate to calculation
Condo (26 units) (maximum 30 bedrooms)	39 spaces 1.5 per unit for 2br units	39 spaces 1.5 per unit	33 spaces 1 per bedroom plus 1 per 10 units	30 spaces 1 per bedroom
TOTAL	320	258	269	165

STAFF ANALYSIS

The property is generally located on the north side of W. 12^th Street and the east side of Indiana Street. The Preliminary Development Plan proposes a mixed use residential and commercial development. The 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 (pre July 1, 2006).

1) In what respects the plan is or is not in general conformity with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan of the City.

Staff Finding – The plan generally supports infill and redevelopment of properties within existing neighborhoods.

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]

(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;

(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;

(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;

(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.

The development is proposed as a mixed use project that includes retail, hotel, and possibly a residential element. It is this mix of uses that provides the format for the proposed redevelopment. The applicant has requested that the residential element remain fluid in that a maximum range has been established, but depending upon the success of the hotel element that designated residential space may be added to the hotel inventory for either additional rooms or suites for extended stays.

The site is small and is maximized with development such that on-site vehicular circulation is limited to the underground parking garage element. Staff is continuing to assess the pedestrian circulation related to street crossings and pavement markings. The subject property is located within the environs of designated historic districts and properties: Hancock Historic district, National Register of Historic Places, Oread Historic district, Register of Historic Kansas Places, and the Jane A. Snow Residence, National Register of Historic Places and the Lawrence Register of Historic Places. A separate analysis of that impact is provided by the Historic Resources Administrator for consideration by the Historic Resources Commission.

Staff Finding – The PCD zoning provides the maximum flexibility to the developer in tailoring the uses and the project to community desires but also demands that waivers be granted to accommodate the size and scope of the project.

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.

Conventionally, open space is that area found at the ground level. It is typically comprised of required yard areas and designated areas for common accessibility within a particular development. Open space is provided around the boundary of the site. A total 6,499 SF is required to meet the minimum 20% standard set out in section 20-1008 (B). Open space is frequently considered to also be green space. However, paved areas are also allowed to be included in this requirement as a PCD such as courts and play yards and other hard surface areas. Included in the proposed development is the request to reduce the required yard building setbacks. An exhibit provided by the applicant details these reductions.

The proposed development includes a series of yard reductions, thus reducing the ground level open space. A total of 4,493 SF is shown on the plan. As part of the September public hearing discussion, staff sought input on the ability of the applicant to apply open terrace areas within the development toward the open space requirement. Direct comment was not included, but the overall discussion by the Planning Commission seemed to support the use of the terrace areas as part of the common open space. The open terrace areas represent approximately 13,505 SF of the building. This area would exceed the minimum requirement independently.

Staff Finding –The combination of the ground level open spaces and the proposed terrace areas within the building exceed the minimum requirements of the PCD. It should be noted that the terrace areas shall not be converted to enclosed space as a condition of approval.

The applicant has submitted an exhibit that details the dimensional reductions for the required yard areas that should be made part of the final document to demonstrate the reductions.

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.

The applicant has submitted a traffic study for staff review. Key elements that concern staff address the predominant pedestrian nature of the area as well as timing of improvements. Changes to the Preliminary Development Plan and inclusion on the Final Development Plan address the sidewalk connection across the driveway and eliminating the angled pathway across 12^th Street to direct pedestrians to the corner. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to address pedestrian connections in anticipation of the submittal of the Final Development Plan as well as applicable public improvement plans.

Additional documentation is recommended with the submission of the Final Development Plan. It should include a phasing schedule to address these elements as part of the demolition and construction phases as well as the ultimate development. Public improvement plans are required as part of the proposed development and shall be a condition of approval associated with the Final Development Plan.

With regard to Oread Avenue, the City Commission will need to comment and approve the following items: changes to the right-of-way, on-street parking along Oread Avenue, approval of lighting, and elements to be required/shown in the public improvement plans.

Staff Finding – No changes are required to the street configuration based on the Traffic Study recommendations. Staff identified several improvements to the pedestrian pathway that should be modified. The City Commission will need to act separately on the proposed improvements to Oread Avenue.

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 subject property is located within the Oread Neighborhood. This neighborhood group has been involved in multiple meetings with the applicant regarding the development project. It is a neighborhood identified in Horizon 2020 and a neighborhood plan for Oread was completed in the early 1980’s. Multiple development requests in the recent years and the conversion of apartment buildings to boarding houses have resulted in discussions regarding the need to revisit and update existing plans for the neighborhood.

Traffic, pedestrian flow, reinvestment in properties, and physical relationship of the subject property to the University are elements that support the proposed development within the neighborhood. The project less clearly provides neighborhood conservation. Therefore, some kind of neighborhood planning should be addressed in the near future to assure that similar projects are consistent with neighborhood goals. A key element of the development is the physical and visual orientation of the development to its surroundings that will impact the immediate area. The proposed development is located at a high intensity area within the neighborhood. The building orientation is toward the University entrance. Secondary building orientation is provided on the west side of the building toward the neighborhood. The north and east side elevations are tangent with interior lots and building development. The large scale of the development is compatible with University buildings. This project or similar large scale projects would not be appropriate in other portions of this neighborhood without or until updated plans for the neighborhood are completed and or revised.

Staff Finding –Few public comments were made in September. The comments received addressed specific elements of the project and not the qualitative question of neighborhood impact. Staff’s conclusion is that there is support for the project within the neighborhood.

6) In what respects the plan is or is not in conformance with the development standards and criteria of this article. [The general standards are found in Section 20-1006 and Preliminary Development Plan requirements are listed in Section 20-1010].

The general development standards pertaining to all planned unit developments are found in

Section 20-1006, "General Development Standards - Planned Unit Developments,"

Section 20-1008, "Development Standards - Planned Commercial Developments".

Section 20-1010, "The Preliminary Development Plan"

Specific waivers are associated with this proposed development including minimum area for a PCD, access to a collector street, reduction in minimum area, building setback reductions, and off-street parking reductions and.

Reductions Requested:

1. Waivers for location of PUD not adjacent to a collector or arterial; Subject property is located in high traffic area with proximity to collector and arterial access, both 12^th Street and Indiana Street are local streets.

The subject property abuts local streets at the east entrance to campus. This is a high activity area within the neighborhood. The Development Code no longer requires Planned Developments to have direct access to collector or higher order streets and allows development to occur with access to local streets. Similarly conventional commercial zoning is recommended to be located at intersections with collector and arterial streets in many instances. The existing neighborhood commercial zoning, CN1, does not meet this standard. Previous development plans have been approved that do not have direct access to a collector or higher order street designation where the proposed development is determined to be suitably located.

· Subject property is located along KU transit route and City transit route.

· Subject property is located within a high activity area within the neighborhood with direct proximity to the University.

Staff recommendation on Waiver: Proximity to a transit route and the high traffic activity in this location are consistent with the behavior of a PCD located on a street other than a local street. Additionally, this requirement is not present in the new code as it is a limiting factor to utilize Planned Unit Developments in unique circumstances. Adequate traffic accommodations are provided including planned public improvements to the abutting street network.

2. Waivers for reduction in area requirements; subject property is less than the minimum 2-acre requirement.

Multiple waivers are associated with this proposed development with regard to minimum area and setback. The Planning Commission has the authority to waive this requirement when it is in the public interest and consistent with plans of the City and when such use would not impose an adverse impact on public facilities, utilities, transportation or storm drainage system or upon adjacent property. Approval of the reduction in the area requirement is directly related to other reductions because of the total size of the proposed development.

Staff recommendation on Waiver: Other Planned Commercial Developments have been approved on less than 2 acres. The proposed reduction is consistent with previous Planning Commission decisions regarding infill and redevelopment of properties for commercial development.

3. Waivers for reduction in setback requirements; setback reductions are needed based on the size of the proposed building limited by the size of the property.

The proposed building is substantially taller than any other development application in the recent past. The proposed development observes a 2’ setback along the east and west sides of the development. A 23’ setback is provided along the south (front yard) and a 21’ setback is provided along the north which also serves as a fire lane access. Typical setbacks for a PCD include the following: Front Yard Setback 20’ (South property line); Periphery Boundary 30’ (All property lines);

Side Yard Setback 20’ (East property line); Rear Yard Setback 25’ (North property line)

In addition to these base setbacks, the building shall be setback an additional 8’ for each story over three stories. This would add an additional 24’ total to each setback. The old code does not specify a maximum height restriction for the PCD District. Approval of height is discretionary authority granted to the Planning Commission. The setbacks listed above assume that additional setback is applied as the overall height increases for any given development. The commission is also provided with discretionary authority to waive the setbacks for a PCD. There are no criteria for evaluation of these waivers. Past cases have included the consideration of the existing development pattern of the surrounding area in determining setback reductions.

· The proposed building is setback only partially from the front (12^th Street frontage) and the rear (north side).

· The building pattern along Indiana Street is disrupted by the proposed project. However, the project is located at the end of the block rather than in the middle of a block face.

· The building setback along 12^th Street seems to be similar (in distance) to the apartment building to the east.

· The proposed building desing does include setbacks on upper floors and open terraces which provides some mitigation to the overall height.

Staff recommendation on Waiver: The subject property is a portion of an existing urban block. The total area is relatively narrow. The size and scope of the proposed development requires setback reductions. As compensation, the building is proposed in a manner that steps back building in a manner to reduce the massing along a flat façade of any given elevation.

Likewise the overall height of the building is not specified as a maximum standard for the district. The authority to specify height and applicable setback requirements is granted to the Planning Commission. The overall setbacks are consistent with traditional commercial applications regarding interior situations (the east side). The front setback is similar in appearance to the east half of the block along W. 12^th Street. The west and north side setback reductions are reflective of the proposed design. The north si