Meeting reconvened at from a 5-minute recess at 5:45 p.m. on January 30, 2004.

ITEM NO. 16:           preliminary development plan for 6wak apartments;                                       north of w. 6^th Street and west of wakarusa drive                                             (PDP/BPD)

PDP-04-08-03:  Preliminary Development Plan for 6Wak Apartments.  The applicant proposes a multiple-family residential development containing 236 apartments on 17.57 acres.  The property is generally located north of W. 6^th Street and west of Congressional Drive.  Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for 6Wak, property owners of record.

This Item was dealt with second on the extended meeting agenda, January 30, 2004.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Patterson described the proposed development, which would involve 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom apartments.  PRD zoning was approved for the subject area, pending approval of a Preliminary Development Plan.

This plan had been reviewed thoroughly by Staff, as it had been submitted several months ago but deferred by the applicant.  Three waivers were requested for the project as follows:

1. Reduction of the peripheral setback from the south side of Lot 1, Block 3 of Wakarusa Place Addition from 35’ to 0’ for access to the adjacent office lot;
2. Reduction of the peripheral setback from the south side of Lot 2, Block 2 of Wakarusa Place Addition from 35’ to 15’ for placement of two 8-bay garages; and
3. Reduction of the peripheral setback from the east side of Lot 1, Block 3 of Wakarusa Place Addition from 35’ to 20’ for placement of a bus stop/postal cluster box area/kiosk.

Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Development Plan with the three waivers and subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. 

Upon request, Mr. Patterson discussed access in various directions to/from the subject area.  In Staff’s opinion, the Traffic Impact Studies done for earlier, more intense development proposals were adequate to fulfill the TIS requirement for this project.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, spoke on behalf of the applicant, stating the proposed development plan was based on the zoning approved in 2002.  The applicant agreed with the recommendations of the Staff Report.

PUBLIC HEARING

Gwen Klingenberg spoke on behalf of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, referencing the statement in the Wakarusa Place traffic study of 2001 that traffic generation potential at 6^th & Wakarusa Drive was significantly higher on the south side of the intersection than the north.

The neighborhood association was concerned with the potential of 1500+ additional trips per day this proposal could produce in an area already facing significant traffic problems (per the ITE).  Ms. Klingenberg used this data to estimate traffic generation increases on nearby streets.  Of particular concern was the increase of cut-through traffic on Congressional Drive as more travelers attempted to avoid the already congested intersection of 6^th & Wakarusa.

Ms. Klingenberg stated that Chris Huffman of the Kansas Department of Transportation had said the intersection (6^th & Wakarusa) would not be able to accommodate the traffic involved in the approved 6^th & K-10 Nodal Plan.

Paula Peppin, 1109 Stoneridge Drive, asked the Commission to consider the impact of traffic increases seeping into area neighborhoods with lots of children.  She said the neighborhood had attended a meeting discussing traffic calming devices, but – to Ms. Peppin’s understanding – no such devices were currently proposed for Stoneridge, Branchwood or Harvard Road and no traffic study was being required for the proposal’s impact on those areas.

Ms. Peppin said she would like a pedestrian-friendly environment for the children and families living in the area.

Alan Cowles, President of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, asked to speak only on his own behalf as an area resident.  Mr. Cowles opposed this proposal, particularly in light of the potential for a big box store at the intersection of 6^th & Wakarusa Drive.

Mr. Cowles suggested the Commission should not consider this proposal until the court case involving other properties at this intersection was settled.  He noted that, if the court allowed a large retailer to develop on this corner, it would present a negative visual impact on residents in the subject area.

Responding to questioning, Mr. Cowles said that multi-family development with lower density might be appropriate for the subject area, but that all development proposals in the vicinity should be deferred or otherwise delayed until litigation was complete.

CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Keeney reminded the Commission that previous traffic impact studies had been done under the assumption of 15 units per acre and had found the roadways adequate.  He asked where else this project would be appropriate if not at the intersection of two collector streets.

The applicant felt this development would provide a desirable buffer between the existing single-family uses and whatever type of commercial uses were eventually created at the intersection.

Mr. Keeney said the land use issues were decided in the rezoning process, this discussion should be centering on plat issues like landscaping, placement of dumpsters, etc.

Bill Newsome, property co-owner, said he also lived and raised children in this neighborhood. 

Mr. Newsome stated this was an appropriate transitional use within the approved Master Plan for the area.  The proposed development plan had followed all the regulations, including traffic studies and review by City departments and KDOT.  He asked the Commission to consider the “official” opinions of the review bodies, not individual statements.

The applicant felt this project had nothing to do with the current court cases.

Mr. Newsome responded to questioning that he was “very much against” the idea of developing with 12 units per acre. 

It was determined that the existing traffic studies had not taken into account anything south of 6^th Street, but that this was appropriate and adequate according to the rules in place at the time.  Since that time, an interim policy has been put into place that now requires the study to reach the next major intersection.

Mr. Patterson pointed out the recommended condition that the applicant be willing to take part in a benefit district for signalization and geometric improvements at 6^th & Congressional if that was later seen as a need.

Regarding the comment that future commercial uses would visually impact this development, Staff noted that the rear of this project - garages and landscaping - would face the commercial areas. 

Mr. Patterson closed by repeating that Staff had found the proposed development plan in conformance with the 9 Criteria (for Preliminary Development Plan approval), with Horizon 2020 and with the approved Area Plan.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

It was established that the Director of Public Works was gathering information about Congressional Road in response to neighborhood requests, but no data was yet available.  The Commission could condition the Preliminary Development Plan accordingly to consider this information during the Final Development Plan stage.

It was suggested the Commission could condition the development plan on a lower density than that approved in the rezoning, since the rezoning was made conditional upon the plan.  New findings would have to be created for such an action.

Staff was asked to give an opinion on the idea that a significant amount of traffic would use Harvard Road as a “cut through”.  Mr. Patterson replied that Congressional Drive and Overland Drive were adequately sized and had been planned with full development in mind, taking into account the eventual widening of 6^th Street.  The City’s Traffic Engineer had considered cut through movements on Harvard an unreasonable choice for the majority of vehicular traffic.

The Commission asked what the target levels of service were for collectors and arterials.  Ms. Finger responded that collector intersections were designed for a C level of service at peak hours and arterial intersections at a D level.

Comm. Schachter said this was a prime example of traffic patterns he did not like (collectors crossing arterials at close intervals) and he was personally concerned with the potential for cut through traffic.  However, he acknowledged the Commission had approved PRD-2 zoning already and asked where mid-density development would be appropriate if not here.

Comm. Schachter suggested condition the Preliminary Development Plan so a traffic calming plan would be included in the Final Development Plan if the City Traffic Engineer determined that Congressional between 6^th Street and Harvard Road would be overburdened.  The applicant was asked if there would be any objection to doing the extended traffic study that would be needed for the Traffic Engineer to make this determination. 

Mr. Keeney replied that this would be fine, and Mr. Newsome said he was sensitive to traffic concerns and would meet this requirement if it was made.  However, Mr. Newsome said “it does not sit well with me that the rules are constantly changing on us”.  He considered the expanded traffic study the lesser of two evils in light of the fact that the Commission could simply lower the allowable density on the development plan.

The Commission discussed its ability to place more requirements on a project that had met all the existing regulations and had received support from Staff.  Comm. Lawson expressed concern that the emotional testimony of the public was being allowed to overrun regulatory procedure.  It was suggested that new concerns (public safety) rising from the public hearing were a reasonable basis for additional study requirements.   

Comm. Haase said it was not fair to make the residents pay the price for the City’s mistake of placing these collectors so close.  Ms. Finger explained that the street layout was not a mistake, but had been done intentionally.  This was consistent with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the adopted 6^th Street Access Management Plan, and was the only way to correlate proper access management.  This issue was added to the Parking Lot list.

Chairman Burress stated his objection to the previous characterization by another Commissioner of public testimony as “emotional” and “non-factual”.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the Preliminary Development Plan, with the three associated waivers, for 6Wak Apartments and forwarding 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:

1. Provision of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for the geometric and signalization improvements for the intersection of W. 6^th Street and Congressional Drive;
2. Provision of the following revisions of the Preliminary Development Plan:

a.  Update the Development Schedule on Sheet 3;

b. Update the total provided standard parking;

c. Provide concrete apron to access of Lot 2, Block 2;

d. Include the word reinforced concrete with the concrete aprons;

e. Configure bus drop-off to City Standard;

f. Confirm that all Utility Easements and Drainage Easements have been recorded (existing platted easements ok);

g. Express the “Existing drainage easement to be vacated” through what process; and

h. Mark the 21’ driveway aisle on Lot 2, Block 2 as one-way or increase aisle width to 25’.

3. Provision of the following items for the Stormwater Engineer:
1. Reference the 9-17-01 drainage study. Correct the overall system layout to work with the proposed basin and label the outlet structure to be implemented;
2. Correct layout, with labels of all required public drainage easements on the plan;
3. Public improvement plans for the storm drainage system must be submitted to the Public Works Department for review prior to release of the plan to the building inspector; and
4. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. Two copies must be submitted to the Stormwater Engineer for approval prior to release of building permits. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.

4.      a. The applicant shall provide data and assumptions to planning Staff for review and approval by the City Engineer regarding the traffic impact to Congressional Drive between 6^th Street and Harvard Road.

1. If the City Engineer determines that traffic on Congressional Drive south of 6^th Street cannot perform at service level “C” or better, with the traffic projections based on the current and approved zoning for the area, then the applicant will present a plan for traffic calming measures for Congressional Drive south of 6^th Street with the submittal of their Final Development Plan.

Motion carried 8-1, with Comm. Eichhorn voting in opposition.