PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT

Regular Agenda - Public Hearing Item

PC Staff Report

10/24/05

ITEM NO 7D:                        PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BAUER FARM; NORTH-                                                EAST CORNER OF W. 6^TH STREET & WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)

PDP-03-02-05: Preliminary Development Plan for Bauer Farm.  This proposed planned commercial, office, and residential development contains approximately 43.88 acres.  The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6^th Street (U.S. Highway 40) between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., property owner of record.  (This item relates to Z-03-16-05, Z-03-17-05, and Z-07-48-05.)  Consideration will include requests for approval of waivers from various requirements in Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance.

This item was heard at the April 27 Planning Commission meeting with the resulting action of the item being tabled for four (4) months, to allow for time for consideration of how to approach New Urbanism or New Urbanism/Conventional hybrid development in our community. Attachment “C” contains the April Planning Commission minutes for this item.

Discussion on the action clarified that two processes would take place simultaneously:

1. “The Planning Commission would form a new subcommittee that would work with Staff on developing an overlay district for the subject area that would allow the use of alternate design elements as proposed. The use of such an overlay district would become available with the adoption of the new code.

2. The applicant will work with Staff regarding the waivers, possibly resulting in a revised development plan based on the direction given by the Commission (April Planning Commission meeting). However, Staff was hesitant to allow the use of these waivers without initiating an accompanying set of code amendments. These amendments would be discussed as part of this option.

In four months (August 2005), the Commission would evaluate the progress of both options. The applicant was asked to be prepared at that time to provide more information about traffic on 6^th Street.”

Staff met and reviewed the Preliminary Development Plan and waivers with the applicant and provided the applicant with the April Planning Commission meeting minutes (attachment C).

This Item was deferred from the August/September meetings to the October Planning Commission Meeting to allow Commissioners and the public to hear a presentation on New Urbanism and to meet to allow the applicant to present development philosophy of the project to the Planning Commission. On October 12, the Planning Commission held a mid-month study session with the developer where the requested waivers and philosophy of the project were reviewed.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Staff recommends denial of the Preliminary Development Plan based on Section 20-1010.1, of Article 10 of Chapter 20 [Zoning Ordinance] of the City Code, for the reasons summarized as staff findings in the staff review section of this report. Section 20-1010.1 gives direction for one of three recommendations that the Planning Commission can make in the findings they are required to forward on to the City Commission. The three types of recommendations the Planning Commission can make are:

1. Approval as submitted;

2. Approval with specific conditions not included in the plan submittal; or

3. Denial.

Staff can not recommend the plan as submitted. The applicant has indicated the plan was submitted with a specific design approach/philosophy in mind, and revisions requested by staff for conformance with the regulations would destroy this design approach/philosophy, and therefore, staff’s recommendation is for denial of the Preliminary Development Plan for Bauer Farm.

Staff recommendation for denial of this plan is also based on a determination by the Utilities Staff that this plan does not meet the requirements of Section 21-706(d) of the Subdivision Regulations, as the downstream wastewater system, pursuant to the 2003 Wastewater Facility Master Plan, may not have capacity for this new unplatted development.

Applicant’s Reason for Request:	The proposed multi-use site of offices, residences and commercial sites will allow the development of a key parcel of land to offer a unique environment in the Lawrence community (New Urbanism).
KEY POINTS · The property is unplatted. · The Preliminary Development Plan acts as the Preliminary Plat for the property. · The area is contained within the 6^th and Wakarusa Drive Area Plan. · The plan incorporates some aspects of New Urbanism. · Champion Lane is an existing dedicated unimproved public right-of-way that is proposed by the applicant to be partially vacated through replatting. · This development plan is unique as it serves three Planned Development zonings [PRD, POD and PCD]. · The applicant desires additional project input from policy makers on how to develop a new urbanism project given the code limitations in the PUD section.
ASSOCIATED CASES/FUTURE ACTION REQUIRED · Z-03-17-05, 8.23 acres rezoning request from PRD-2 to PCD-2 · Z-03-16-05, 2.59 acres rezoning request from PRD-2 to POD-1 · Z-07-48-05, 18.939 acres rezoning request from PCD-2 (with restrictions) to PCD-2 (with modified restrictions) · Planning Commission meeting of April 2004 [PDP-03-02-05] · PDP-03-02-05 would need to be reviewed and approved by City Commission · Final Development Plan approval by Planning Commission · Final Plat approval by Planning Commission · Final Plat acceptance of easements and rights-of-way by City Commission · Recording of Final Development Plan and Final Plat at Register of Deeds Office
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING , April 2005 Planning Commission Discussion and Public Hearing Minutes – Attachment “C”

GENERAL INFORMATION

Current Zoning and Land Use:                   PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) and PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development), requested rezoning of 8.23 acres from PRD-2 to PCD-2 [Z-03-17-03] and 2.59 acres from PRD-2 to POD-1 [Z-03-16-03]; Existing property has been used for agricultural crop production and is undeveloped.

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:             RS-1 (Single-family Residential) and RO-1B (Residence-Office) Districts to the north; Across (north of) Overland Drive - Free State High School and Apartment Complex.

                                                          PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) and RO-1B (Residence-Office) Districts to the east; Across (east of) Folks Drive – Apartment Complex, Bank and Vacant Lot.

                                                          O-1 and Pending O-1 (Office), PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development), RO-1A (Residence-Office) and PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) Districts; Across (south of) W. 6^th Street – Office Buildings, Banks, Commercial Retail, Convenience Store, Restaurant.

                                                          PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) and A (Agriculture) Districts to the west; Across Wakarusa Drive – undeveloped.

Reason for Request: Commercial, office and residential development of property.

SITE/PROJECT SUMMARY:

CATEGORY OF USE	Acreage	Quantities (S.F. & D.U.)
Commercial PCD-2 16 buildings on 14 lots plus 2 drainage tracts Includes 7 drive-thru       businesses and 1       auto-service pull thru Hotel/Conference Center info not shown	27.2 gross acres – commercial	61,350 GSF Commercial Retail 10,000 GSF Banks 39,250 GSF Office 23,250 GSF Residential 133,850 GSF Total plus Hotel/ Conference Center 26,300 GSF Community Theatre
Residential PRD-2 208 Dwelling Units	16.4 gross acres – residential 208 Total Residential Dwelling units in the PRD-2 portion.	18 – “A” Custom Homes 18 – Carriage Homes            (above “A” Garages) 19 – “B” Starter Homes 93 – “C” Row Homes 60 –  “D” Mansion House (60 apartment/ condominium dwelling units in 11 Mansion Houses)
Office POD-2 1 building	2.6 gross acres (72,773 SF Lot)	8,200 GSF Office

BAUER FARM ISSUES

Planning Staff has identified the following as issues with the Bauer Farm Planned Unit Developments. Typically, a revised PUD would be submitted based upon review comments from Planning and the other reviewing departments and agencies. The proposed PUD is based on aspects of New Urbanism, some of which are not allowed within our zoning and subdivision codes.

Streets

1. Right-in on W. 6^th Street. Access restrictions have been purchased by KDOT and are not available along W. 6^th Street except for Champion Lane. Plan shows a right-in between Champion Lane and Wakarusa Drive.
2. Champion Lane. Champion Lane is an unimproved platted public right-of-way. The City Engineer and Traffic Engineer are requesting that it be required to connect W.  6^th Street to Overland Drive, where the intersection should consist of a full-size roundabout. The Preliminary Development Plan does not show a continuous connection of Champion Lane from W. 6^th Street to Overland Drive. Champion Lane was previously platted with the High School property and was designed to help mitigate High School traffic congestion at the intersections of Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road with Overland Drive and W. 6^th Street.
3. Overland Drive needs to be widened to accommodate 3 lanes (based on applicant’s Traffic Impact Study). Plan proposed restriping, however Overland is not wide enough to accommodate 3 lanes and would need to be rebuilt and widened, and would also need to include a bicycle lane.
4. Street and street intersection improvements will need to be made per Public Works.
5. Traffic Impact Study will need to be revised based upon access and street changes to Preliminary Development Plan.

Zoning

1. The zoning [Z-06-19-03] - Ordinance No. 7756 for the existing PCD-2 portion of the project (Overland Drive to the north, Champion Lane right-of-way to the east, W. 6^th Street to the south, and Wakarusa Drive to the west) was approved subject to the following conditions:

(a) No building permit will be issued until the W. 6^th Street Project is substantially completed.

(b) No one building shall be larger than 50,000 gross square feet of space.

(c) There be no more than 62,000 gross square feet of retail commercial space.

(d) A specific list of uses and restricted used were approved as part of the rezoning ordinance. 

A copy of Ordinance Numbers 7756 and 7757 are attached to the rezoning applications. A number of proposed uses are specifically restricted from the PCD-2 area including the following: automobile service, eating establishment with a drive thru, hotel, motel, and bank with a drive-thru. Residential uses were not approved as a permitted use as part of the zoning restrictions in the existing PCD-2 area. The applicant has requested modifications to the zoning to allow for these uses to include the 7 drive-thru businesses and 1 auto service pull thru.

2. Net Residential density for the PRD portion needs to be computed and shown.
3. Residential density for the PCD portion should also be shown (number of proposed residential dwelling units for Lots 9 and 10.)
4. Calculations and information concerning the hotel/conference center need to be included in the summary use table.

Wastewater

Per Section 21-706(d), approval of any plat requiring connection to the City’s wastewater system is contingent upon the availability and adequacy of the City to provide wastewater services to the area being subdivided. It is the subdivider’s responsibility to ensure their proposed development takes into consideration the City’s long-range plans, studies, reports, and similar documents for wastewater services. Failure to conform to these provisions warrant denial of the subdivision. Provisions for downstream wastewater service is an issue.

Utilities

The placement and timing of phased utility improvements, and the size and location of utility easements need to be addressed with and approve by the utility providers. In addition the placement of utilities along the streets appears to conflict with the landscaping (tree roots and tree growth) placed in the proposed diminished width of the peripheral boundary (Sheet 3 of 6).

Open Space

Planned Unit Development require a minimum of 20% of the land area devoted to residential use to be developed for open-air recreational uses and other common open space. This common open space area needs to be identified on the plan.

Tandem Parking

The applicant is showing tandem parking for the “D” apartment/condominium units. Tandem parking (where one car is parked directly behind another) has been allowed in other development but only one of the two spaces can then be included in the required minimum parking space calculations.

ADDITIONAL PUD INFORMATION

          Additional Planned Unit Development information is required to be shown on the plan as indicated in the attached Staff review comments.

WAIVERS, SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS AND VARIANCES

The applicant has requested waivers, subdivision design standard variances, and building and parking lot setback from W. 6^th Street Variance. A copy of the graphic requests can be found in attachment “A”.

WAIVERS

Wavier 1. Lot size.

Per Section 20-1006(a): “No individual building lot shall be created that contains less than 4,000 square feet or that has a frontage less than 40 feet in width or that has less than 80 feet in depth.” The applicant is proposing 19 “B – Starter Homes”, which have proposed lot widths of 35’ x 100’ lot depths. In addition, the footprint dimensions of the townhouses are 20’ x 40’, which could be divided in the future under the state Townhouse provision.

Staff would be in support the requested waiver on lot size.

Waiver 2. Periphery Boundary.

2A. Per Section 20-1006(i) PUD: “All buildings, structures and parking lots shall be set back from the periphery boundary or periphery street rights-of-way not less than 30 feet.” At the closest points, the applicant is showing 10’ setbacks on W. 6^th Street, 17’ setback on Wakarusa Drive, 10’ setback on Overland Drive, and 10’ setback on Folks Road.

2B. Per Section 20-1007(E)(2) PRD: “All buildings, structures and parking lots shall be set back from the periphery boundary for residential not less than 35 feet.” At the closest points, the applicant is showing 10’ setbacks on Overland Drive, 10’ setbacks on Folks Road, and 16’ setbacks on W. 6^th Street.

Staff would be in support of a waiver for internal periphery boundaries between the PRD, PCD, and POD areas. It is noted that the exterior periphery boundaries on the outside of the project are all located along street frontages. Other PUD developments have normally been required to maintain the periphery boundary setbacks along street frontages. The periphery boundary setbacks allow for an area in which open-space recreation (walking the dog) can be provided and a visual buffer area for landscaping. The applicant is proposing a more New Urbanism approach in which the buildings and proposed drive-thru lanes are pushed close to the exterior streets. If this approach is approved by the Planning Commission, then additional streetscape amenities should be detailed and additional internal open space recreation areas should be identified and included in the project.

Waiver 3. Residential Setbacks.

3a. Per Section 20-1006(d) PUD: “All individual buildings or structures shall be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet. A waiver from this minimum distance to permit zero lot line developments may be permitted if the structures are designed to meet the building code requirements adopted by the city. The applicant is proposing distances less than 10’ between the “A” Custom Homes and “B” Starter Homes and between the Cottages above the “A” garages and the “B” Starter Homes.

3b. Per Section 20-1007(E) PRD:

(1) Front yard. Minimum 15 feet from public or private street or road right-of-way line.

(3) Side and Rear Yard. 10 feet. The applicant is proposing residential front yard setbacks of approximately 10 feet, and side and rear yard setbacks less than 10 feet.

Staff would be in support of this waver providing that the structures be designed to meet the building and fire codes and that the eaves overhang, roof stormwater drainage, and mechanical equipment (air conditioning) noise levels be considered in the layout and design of the residential structures. The planning commission may approve a lesser setback provided that if the setback is reduced below 10 feet between structures, the structures must be designed to meet the building code requirements for zero setback.

Waiver 4. Commercial Setbacks.

Per Section 20-1008(D) PCD:

(1) Front Yard. Minimum 15 feet from public or private street or road right-of-way line.

(3) Side Yard. (a) Detached or semi-detached buildings or structures – 20 feet.

(4) Rear Yard. 35 feet for commercial. The applicant is proposing a commercial building setback as close as 10’ on W. 6^th Street, 17 feet on Wakarusa Drive, and 10’ on Champion Lane if the northern leg is not vacated.  

Staff would be most concerned with the commercial setbacks around the exterior of the project. If the peripheral boundary setbacks are modified by the Planning Commission, then it would be appropriate to also modify the individual lot setbacks.

SECTION 21-6, SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS

The subdivision design standards allow the Planning Commission to use their discretion to vary from the standards as part of their approval of a Planned Unit Development. Per Section 21-613 Subdivision Design Standards, Planned Unit Development, “A planned unit development may be approved by the Planning Commission even though the design of the project does not include standard street, lot and subdivision arrangements; Provided, that variation from the standards of these regulations ‘(Section 21 Article 6)’ can be accomplished without destroying the purpose and intent of these regulations.”

Subdivision Design Standard 1. Offset streets.

Per Section 21-607.1(g) of the Subdivision Regulations:

“Local streets intersecting opposite side of another local or a collector street shall be offset 125 feet or more.”

Staff would be in support of the proposed alignment of the internal private driveways/internal streets within this project.

Subdivision Design Standard 2. Alleyways.

Per Section 21-608(d) of the Subdivision Regulations: “Alleys shall not be permitted in residential areas.” The applicant is proposing alleyways within the residential areas of the subdivision.

Staff is generally in support of the proposal to allow for residential alleys, with consideration needing to be given for the proposed widths and utility/service use. The proposed width of the alleyways needs to be detailed with attention given to placement of utilities and provision for trash service pick-up and the length of the alleyway if blocked.

Subdivision Design Standard 3. (Private) Street width

Per Section 21-607.6(u) of the Subdivision Regulations:

“All new construction shall meet the design and construction requirements of the city and/or county as provided in these regulations and as set forth in section 21-708.”The applicant is proposing local private street widths of 20 feet B-B (back-of-curb to back-of-curb).

Staff is generally in support of the narrower road concept. Parking within the 20 feet B-B would not be allowed and would need to be signed as No Parking. Additional width for adjacent parallel parking is shown. The Fire Department has expressed concern with modifying the geometrics of the following two median islands by either shortening the islands to 30 feet or increasing each drive lane to 20 feet: 1. Island at entrance from Wakarusa Drive and; 2. Island east of internal Champion Lane proposed roundabout.

VARIANCE

Variance 1. W. 6^th Street Setback

Per Section 21-1201 of the Subdivision Regulations: “Building and parking setback lines are hereby established on certain major streets or highways as follows: W. 6^th Street from County Road 13 (K-10 Highway) to Monterey Way: setback line of 50 feet.”

Per Section 21-1203 Appeals – Setbacks

“Notwithstanding Article 8 of this Chapter, any appeal of the building and parking setback line established for major streets or highways shall be to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall have the power to modify or vary the building and parking setback line in specific cases in order that unwarranted hardship, which constitutes a complete deprivation of use as distinguished from merely granting a privilege, may be avoided. In the absence of such a hardship, the intended purpose of the building and parking setback line shall be strictly observed."

The applicant has requested a modification from the 50 feet building and parking setback line from W. 6^th Street. Per Section 21-1203, an appeal of the building and parking setback line would need to be made as a variance request to the Board of Zoning Appeals for their consideration and action, or a text amendment to Section 21-1203 would need to be presented to and approved by the City Commission.

OPEN SPACE

The applicant has been requested by staff to provide a graphic illustration on where the open-air recreation use/common open space is located for the commercial area and for the residential area (minimum of 20 percent is required within the PRD and within the PCD). The plan notes that 3.34 acres of open air recreation area is provided, but does not indicate where it is located.

ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS INFOMATION that is required to be shown on the Preliminary Development Plan

1. The owners of record and any other parties having an interest in the proposed development. (GIS information shows Carolina LTD and Henry’s Flowers L.L.C. to be owners.) The plan lists the developer but not the owners.
2. The location and width of proposed utilities need to be shown throughout the project. The Preliminary Development Plan acts as the Preliminary Plat. Sewer mains would be required to touch each lot. The location and adequate width for Utility Easements would need to be shown throughout the project. The plan shows 15’ wide utility easements under the private drives in the residential portion.
3. Public cross access easements and proposed public cross access easement dedications.
4. Per Section 20-1010(b)(13), A schedule showing the proposed time and sequence within which the applications for final approval of all portions of the Planned Unit Development are intended to be filed. The Planning Commission may either approve or modify the submitted development time schedule. The development phases as shown on the time schedule shall also be indicated on the plan.
5. List the type of surfacing and base course proposed for all parking, loading and walkway areas.
6. The following residential note needs to be added, “The plan has been designed to comply with the minimum provisions of the Final Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, 24 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Appendix II, of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended.”
7. A photometric plan will need to be provided with the Final Development Plan(s). The Preliminary Development Plan needs a note to state: Light sources are to be shielded to prevent point source glare from adjacent properties or streets.
8. Add note: Handicap sidewalk ramps shall be installed where the sidewalks intersect with curb & gutters and with handicap parking spaces throughout the project.
9. Need to review placement of sidewalks throughout project to ensure adequate pedestrian connections and to provide for separation between vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
10. Pedestrian crossing of wider driveway entrances into the project should be located so slower pedestrians can safely wait at the driveway median (shelter crossing with an accessible median).
11. Planning is recommending that sidewalk along W. 6^th Street be parallel to W. 6^th Street, rather than curvilinear.
12. Handicap parking spaces need to be located as close as possible to building entrances, per ADA requirements.
13. Proposed location(s) of U.S. Mail service cluster boxes should be shown on the plan.
14. Please provide additional information on the location and calculation of the required 20% common open space.
15. Please provide the number of bedrooms for multiple-family apartment dwelling units in each of the Big House structures and for mixed-use Lots 9 and 10 (to determine minimum number of required parking spaces, tandem parking spaces are allowed but only count as one provided parking space).
16. Separate Block and Lot numbers are required per Plat criteria.
17. Indicate on plan, how the individual dwelling units and commercial tenant properties will be addressed.
18. Please show the type, location, and height of any fencing proposed within the development.
19. Within the residential area, will individual fences be permitted or prohibited? (relationship as common open space).
20. Provide height/materials of trash enclosures (note on plan).
21. How will trash collection be handled for the PRD and POD areas? (note on plan).
22. Appears Lot 10 building and the POD office building calculation gross floor areas may need to be doubled, as the graphic shows as 2 stories.

Additional prior project review comments from reviewing agencies are included in Attachment “B”.

STAFF ANALYSIS

Per Section 20-1010.1 Findings of Planning Commission, the Planning Commission shall either recommend to the City Commission:

(1) Preliminary approval of the plan as submitted;

(2) Preliminary approval subject to specified conditions not included in the plan submitted; or

(3) Denial of the application for preliminary approval.

If preliminary approval is recommended, either of the plan as submitted or of the plan with conditions, the Planning Commission shall set forth the drawings, specifications, comments, performance bonds and conditions, if any, that shall accompany an application for final approval, and shall set forth that within 18 months of the preliminary approval by the City Commission, or according to an approved development schedule, the landowner shall submit an application to the Planning Commission for final approval over all or a portion of the Planned Unit District.

The recommendation for the granting or denial of preliminary approval shall include findings of fact and shall set forth reasons for the recommendation, specifying with particularity in what respects the plan would or would not be in the public interest, including but not limited to findings of fact and conclusions on the following: (Items A through I).

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

Applicant’s Response: “Figure 9 of Horizon 2020 recommends commercial and office on the site. Allowing a mix of residential uses completes a “New Urbanism” development program.”

The area requested for Preliminary Development Plan approval is located on the north side of W. 6^th Street, from Wakarusa Drive to Folks Road and contains approximately 43.88 gross acres. Free State High School is located across Overland Drive, immediately north of the property. The applicant proposes commercial, office, community facilities and residential uses on the property.

An evaluation of the conformance of this Preliminary Development Plan with the City’s Comprehensive Plan is based on the goals, policies and recommendations in Horizon 2020 and upon the approved W. 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive Nodal Plan. The following are reference sections of Horizon 2020:

Chapter 6 Commercial Land Use

Community Commercial Center (under 200,000 commercial gross square footage): CC200 (Chapter 6 – Page 6)

West 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive (6-15 & 16)

Page 6-16, W. 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive, The intersection of W. 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive is an existing Community Commercial Center limited to 200,000 square feet of commercial gross square footage (CC200 Center) with a nodal development pattern.  While this intersection is designated a CC200 Center, there already exists more commercial gross square footage at the intersection than is recommended for a CC200 Center.

Portions of the intersection of W. 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive are still developing.  However, the southern half of the intersection is completely developed and shall not be expanded beyond the existing commercially zoned property.  The northern half of the intersection is undeveloped.  Commercial development of this portion of the intersection shall not extend beyond Overland Drive (extended) to the north, Congressional Drive (extended) to the west; and Champion Lane (extended) to the east.  Development proposals for the northern portions of the intersection shall include not only commercial uses, but also a variety of other uses including office, community, recreational and multi-family uses.

Criteria for Community Commercial Centers (under 200,000 square feet) (6-32)

Require a Market Impact Analysis (6-36 & 37)

The applicant has provided a Market Impact Study for this project. The market study indicates the commercial project can be absorbed into the community within three years from completion, and that it would not result in a community wide retail vacancy rate of greater than eight percent.

HORIZON 2020 – Residential, Chapter Five.

Medium-density residential areas are intended to promote a mix of housing types within planned development areas.  Medium-density areas should include a mix of single-family detached and attached homes, cluster homes, townhouses and similar housing types, designed and arranged to create compatible and attractive new residential environments.  Extensive concentrations of the same housing type or development pattern should be avoided.

Area Plan – W. 6^th Street/Wakarusa Drive

Excerpts from the Area Plan for the Intersection of W. 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive are included in Attachment D.

Staff Finding – The Preliminary Development Plan is in general conformity with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Consideration will need to be given to the mix-use commercial/residential aspect of the project and the proposed extension of commercial zoning on the east side of Champion Lane.

ITEM B.  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, which reads as follows:

20-1002 (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;

The Preliminary Development Plan is innovative in that it will provide for different types of residential units (townhouse, apartment, single-family, and residential dwellings above commercial) for the local housing market. The plans appear to provide an aesthetic, desirable and economic use of the land. Concern is expressed for providing a minimum of 20% open space that is identifiable and usable as common recreation area and the lack of detail and information on the hotel/convention center. The residential density needs to be computed based upon a net residential density per Section 20-1007(A).

The Lot 8 and Lot 9 proposed buildings’ use of underground parking; retail on the lower level, office on the 2^nd; and, residential on the 3^rd floor is a mixed-use concept promoted by Smart Growth/New Urbanism. As a new design approach it should be encouraged. Proposed Lots 1 through 7 are located closer to W. 6^th Street than code allows (Section 21-1201 requires a building and parking setback line of 50 feet along this section of W. 6^th Street). The proposed Lots 1 through 7 should be combined into larger structures with a 2^nd/3^rd floor mixed-uses, and located farther away from W. 6^th Street. Parking for the uses may be able to be located closer to W. 6^th Street if appropriate berming, grade changes, landscaping and streetscape furniture is provided. Appropriately sized utility easements are also needed.

20-1002 (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;

The project site is adjacent to a Principal Arterial, W. 6^th Street/Highway 40, with approved access via the Champion Lane right-of-way, Folks Road, and Wakarusa Drive. The project could be considered to be an infill development within an established area and can readily be served by existing municipal water located in the immediate vicinity.

This project has not met the requirements of Section 21-706(d) of the Subdivision Regulations or the Sanitary Sewer Extension Administrative Policy adopted in January 1999 [City Administrative Policy 76]. Per Section 21-706(d), The approval of any plat requiring connection to the City’s wastewater system is contingent upon the availability and adequacy of the City to provide wastewater services to the area being subdivided. It is the subdivider’s responsibility to ensure their proposed development takes into consideration the City’s long-range plans, studies, reports, and similar documents for wastewater services. Failure to conform to these provisions warrant denial of the subdivision plat.

Champion Lane is an existing dedicated 80’ public right-of-way which needs to be constructed as part of this project from W. 6^th Street to Overland Drive. When traffic warrants are met, a traffic signal would be placed at the intersection of Champion Lane and W. 6^th Street.

Private and municipal utility departments have expressed concern regarding the ability to be able to fit utilities within the utility easements. Placement and width of utility easements need to be adequately addressed.

20-1002 (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;

The project has certain aspects of Smart Growth/New Urbanism in the design. A large amount of the aesthetics of Smart Growth/New Urbanism is in the close attention to details. In accordance with this, additional detail needs to be provided to determine the character of the different streetscapes, parking lots, pedestrian corridors, drainage detention basins, and proposed commercial and residential structures within this 43.88 acre development. Single-story structures should be avoided.

The location and usefulness of the minimum required 20% common open space needs to be identified.

20-1002(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 project takes into account the existing topography of the site in the location of the drainage detention basins.

Staff Finding -  The plan is not entirely consistent with the Statement of Objectives for Planned Unit Developments, and should be modified or a case made for why variance from these objectives is appropriate.

ITEM C. 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.

The PUD states there is 20% of the gross residential area that is common open space (3.29 required and 3.34 acres provided). The location and usefulness of the required 20% common open space needs to be identified and provided for both the residential and commercial areas.

Staff Finding – The location and usefulness of the common open space needs to be identified for the Planned Unit Development.

ITEM D. 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.

Public Utility Easements and proposed utility placements will need to be shown throughout the Planned Unit Development, as the preliminary PUD also acts as the Preliminary Plat for the property. The applicant will need to meet with the utility providers to determine the adequate placement of utilities and width of utility easements.

WASTEWATER/SANITARY SEWER

This project has not met the requirements of Section 21-706(d) of the Subdivision Regulations or the Sanitary Sewer Extension Administrative Policy adopted in January 1999 [City Administrative Policy 76]. The developers need to evaluate the requirement for the additional capacity and provide detailed plans and schedules which provide the infrastructure to accommodate the proposed developments and associated wastewater sewer flows.

Per Section 21-706(d), The approval of any plat requiring connection to the City’s wastewater system is contingent upon the availability and adequacy of the City to provide wastewater services to the area being subdivided. It is the subdivider’s responsibility to ensure their proposed development takes into consideration the City’s long-range plans, studies, reports, and similar documents for wastewater services. Failure to conform to these provisions warrant denial of the subdivision plat.

ACCESS

Access restrictions on W. 6^th Street have been purchased by KDOT, limiting access to this property from W. 6^th Street to Wakarusa Drive, Champion Lane, and Folks Road intersections.

Champion Lane is a public right-of-way. Staff recommendation is to connect W.  6^th Street to Overland Drive, where the Overland Drive intersection should consist of a full-size roundabout.

Based upon the applicant’s Traffic Impact Study, Overland Drive needs to be widened to accommodate 3 lanes. Street and street intersection improvements will need to be made per review comments and the Traffic Impact Study will need to be revised based upon access and street modifications to the Preliminary Development Plan.

Staff Finding - The plan does not show adequate provisions for proposed placement of utilities and utility easements throughout the PUD. A conflict exists where the plan shows the placement of utilities and landscaping co-existing along W. 6^th Street based upon code separation criteria [Section 20-14A04.85a(6)]. A concern with the limited space for the placement of utilities, especially within the residential area has been expressed by utility providers. The Traffic Impact Study needs to be resubmitted, based upon staff’s recommended modifications to proposed access, acceptable street configuration and geometrics. There is an issue with the ability to provide adequate downstream wastewater service. A downstream wastewater analysis and requirements will need to be addressed, per Section 21-706(d).

ITEM E. 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 property is contained within the W. 6^th Street/Wakarusa Drive Area Plan.

Staff Finding – If the transportation system is appropriately designed and installed, the plan is not anticipated to have a substantially adverse effect on adjacent property and the development or conservation of the neighborhood area.

ITEM F. In what respects the plan is or is not in conformance with the development standards and criteria of this article (Chapter 20, Article 10).

a) The general development standards pertaining to all planned unit developments are found in Section 20-1006, “General Development Standards - Planned Unit Developments,” of the Zoning Ordinance.  Specific development standards are listed in Section 20-1007, “Development Standards - Planned Residential Developments”; Section 20-1008, “Development Standards – Planned Commercial Developments”; and Section 20-1008.6, “Development Standards – Planned Office Developments.”

Staff has reviewed the Preliminary Development Plan based on the above requirements. Review comments have been provided to the applicant. The applicant has made only minor revisions based upon their design philosophy for this development. Instead, they have indicated a desire to pursue numerous waivers from the existing codes.

b) Preliminary Development Plan requirements are listed in Section 20-1010, “The Preliminary Development Plan”.

Staff Finding - Staff has reviewed the Preliminary Development Plan with the Section 20 Article 10 PUD requirements. To be in conformance with the development standards and criteria, the applicant has requested the following waivers that were previously identified and discussed in this staff report (pages 7D – 6 & 7):

• Waiver 1 - Lot size
• Waver 2 -  Peripheral Boundary
• Waiver 3 – Residential Setbacks
• Waiver 4 – Commercial Setbacks

To be in conformance with the Article 10 Planned Unit Development Districts, the Planning Commission would need to grant the waivers. Provisions for open space requirements would need to be identified on the Plan and inclusion of the required additional miscellaneous information as found on pages 7D-9 & 10.

ITEM G. In what respects the plan is or is not in compliance with the requirements for application for tentative approval of the Planned Unit Development.

Section 20-1005, "Development Standards and Criteria," in the Zoning Ordinance states:  (a)    A plan that is consistent with (1) the "Statement of Objectives for Planned Unit Development," (2) the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City, (3) the development standards set out herein, and (4) any specific rules and regulations for Planned Unit Developments adopted from time to time by the Planning Commission and City Commission and placed on public record in the office of the City Clerk shall be deemed to be qualified for tentative approval.  No such rules and regulations shall be revised or added to so as to be applicable to a specific proposal for a Planned Unit Development after an application for tentative approval has been filed by the landowner or his or her agents.”

Staff Finding –  Per Section 20-1005, a preliminary development plan that is consistent with (1) the “Statement of Objectives for Planned Unit Development,” (2) the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City, (3) the development standards set out herein, and (4) any specific rules and regulations for Planned Unit Developments adopted from time to time by the Planning Commission and City Commission and placed on public record in the office of the city clerk shall be deemed to be qualified for tentative approval. No such rules and regulations shall be revised or added to so as to be applicable to a specific proposal for a Planned Unit Development after an application for tentative approval has been filed by the landowner or his or her agents.

The applicant has requested the following modifications from the Subdivision Design Standard and Variance that were previously identified and discussed in this staff report (pages 7D – 7,8 & 9):

· Subdivision Design Standard 1 – Offset Streets

· Subdivision Design Standard 2 – Alleyways

· Subdivision Design Standard 3 – (Private) Street Widths

· Variance – W. 6^th Street Setbacks

To be in conformance, the Planning Commission would need to approval the modifications to the Subdivision Design Standards. A variance for the W. 6^th Street Setback would need to be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals or a text amendment approved by the City Commission to Section 21-1203. Provisions for open space requirements would need to be identified on the Plan and inclusion of the required additional miscellaneous information as found on pages 7D-9 & 10.

ITEM H. The sufficiency of the terms and conditions proposed to protect the interest of the public and the residents of the Planned Unit Development in the case of a plan that proposes development over a period of years.

Some phasing is shown on Sheet 1. Necessary additional information that is missing which needs to be provided would link the specific improvements proposed with each phase of development and the proposed timeline for each phase.

Staff Finding – Development of this size of project is likely to occur over several years. The detailed phasing schedule required by code [Section 20-1010(b)(13)] has not be provided. Additional information needs to be provided to show the proposed improvements scheduled with each phase. General note No. 9 on Sheet 1 of 6 states, “Development phasing lines as shown are preliminary and are subject to modification at developer’s discretion.” The note should be modified or removed, and a phasing schedule with timeline provided.

ITEM I. Stormwater detention calculations and storage of excess stormwater drainage as per City Policy.

Impervious surface calculations for individual lots are provided on Sheet 2.

The Stormwater Engineer has reviewed the project and provided the following review comments:

1. Drainage study has been returned with a request to revise and resubmit.
2. The preliminary development plan dated 03/09/05 does not meet the specified requirements and should not go forward.
3. The proposed storm system that carries 6^th Street runoff must be constructed as a public storm system in a public drainage easement. This includes the detention area on Tract “C.” Show and label the necessary drainage easements.
4. The portions of the proposed storm system within residential areas must be constructed as a public storm systems in public drainage easements connected to Tract “C.” Show and label the necessary drainage easements.
5. Label the size and elevation of all storm sewer pipes and structures.  Verify that the proposed layout provides adequate collection of runoff as intended in the drainage study. More inlets are needed.
6. Label the normal and design water surface elevations for both detention basins.  Label the size and type of outlet controls for each detention basin.
7. Provide grading on the Phase II site to direct flow to the detention system.
8. Correct the 1000 contour wrapping Tract “C” detention.
9. Detention designs must provide one-foot freeboard above the 100-yr water surface. Revise development plan grades as needed.
10. Label the finish floor elevation proposed for each building.
11. 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.
12. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project.  This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.
13. Add a note to the plan specifying that swimming pool construction will comply with City Code Chapter 19, Article 11.

Staff Finding – The Stormwater Engineer is recommending revisions to the drainage study and stormwater drainage design.

<Insert Attachment A – “Bauer Farm, Proposed Waivers and Variances” request from applicant>

ATTACHMENT B

Prior Review Comments from Departments/Reviewing Agencies:

Public Works/Engineering:

1. Need to execute Agreement Not to Protest a Benefit District for geometrics and signalization at Overland Drive and Wakarusa Drive; Signal at Champion Lane and W. 6^th Street; roundabout, geometrics, or signal at Folks Road and Overland Drive and at Champion Lane and Overland Drive.
2. Question on distance from W. 6^th Street/Folks Road Centerline and centerline of drive into project from Folks Road.
3. Champion Lane is required to be improved and to go through from W. 6^th Street to Overland Drive.
4. The proposed right-in with W. 6^th Street has not been approved and is not allowed. KDOT has previously purchased access control and there is no approval from KDOT or the City for the right in/right out.
5. If Overland Drive is widened to three lanes, it would need to include a bike lane as it is a collector.
6. Please provide additional information on the turning lanes on Wakarusa Drive (from Wakarusa Drive into the project and from Wakarusa Drive into eastbound Overland Drive).

Stormwater Engineering:

1. Drainage study has been returned with a request to revise and resubmit.
2. The preliminary development plan dated 03/09/05 does not meet the specified requirements and should not go forward.
3. The proposed storm system that carries 6^th Street runoff must be constructed as a public storm system in a public drainage easement. This includes the detention area on Tract “C.” Show and label the necessary drainage easements.
4. The portions of the proposed storm system within residential areas must be constructed as a public storm systems in public drainage easements connected to Tract “C.” Show and label the necessary drainage easements.
5. Label the size and elevation of all storm sewer pipes and structures.  Verify that the proposed layout provides adequate collection of runoff as intended in the drainage study. More inlets are needed.
6. Label the normal and design water surface elevations for both detention basins.  Label the size and type of outlet controls for each detention basin.
7. Provide grading on the Phase II site to direct flow to the detention system.
8. Correct the 1000 contour wrapping Tract “C” detention.
9. Detention designs must provide one-foot freeboard above the 100-yr water surface. Revise development plan grades as needed.
10. Label the finish floor elevation proposed for each building.
11. 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.
12. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project.  This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.
13. Add a note to the plan specifying that swimming pool construction will comply with City Code Chapter 19, Article 11.

Traffic Engineering:

1. No access to W. 6^th Street between Champion Land & Wakarusa Drive.
2. Champion Lane must be a City Street and connect from W. 6^th Street to Overland Drive.
3. A roundabout needs to be provided at intersection of Overland Drive and Champion Lane.
4. A roundabout needs to be provided at intersection of Overland Drive and Folks Road.
5. An Agreement Not to Protest improvements to Overland Drive and Wakarusa will be needed.
6. Provide 3 lanes and bike lanes on Overland Drive.
7. Offset driveways on Overland Drive.

Municipal Utilities:

1. Provide water line plans. These plans must be submitted for approval and signatures from the Fire and Utilities Departments before building permits are issued.
2. Water line front footage fees due for W. 6^th Street, Wakarusa Drive and Overland Drive.

Public Transit:

1. Public Transit would not be able to enter the site as discussed with the current configuration.  In order to enter the site, the road identified as Champion would need to be a through street and would need a traffic signal so transit could maintain timing.  It would be preferable for bus cut outs to be provided along that road to maintain traffic flow for other drivers.  Obviously, shelters would be a nice amenity for potential passengers.
2. If this road was not developed, transit would serve this site in two ways.  Route 6 counter-clockwise turns at Folks and then onto Overland Drive.  A bus stop across the street from the 2^nd entrance of the site (near side of the first entrance to FSHS) would work if pedestrians have the safe ability to cross Overland Drive.  A second stop could be at the near side of the main entrance to FSHS again with the ability for pedestrians to safely cross. This bus departs utilizing Wakarusa Drive.  Route 6 Clockwise takes Wakarusa Drive to Overland Drive.  A bus stop and perhaps even a bus cut-out prior to the first entrance to the site would allow for passenger pick-ups and drop-offs.  Again, the cut out would help maintain traffic flow – we do have a concern about the volume of traffic related to FSHS, events at the school and swim meets.  A second bus stop and/or cut out could be place on Overland Drive prior to the first entrance to the site off of Overland Drive (the intersection that leads to the Indoor Aquatic Center) would also be nice.   This bus departs utilizing Wakarusa.

Neighborhood Resources:  No comment.

Parks Department:

1. Please show any existing trees to be saved and conservation plan. This issue needs to be resolved prior to equipment being brought in and grade changes being made.
2. This plan is misleading on the tree preservation issue because tree sizes are not shown. A tree survey needs to be done to give better information and then conservation practices put into place to protect trees prior to any grading, building or road construction. Without this plan it appears all existing trees will be destroyed with this project intensity. Again, this plan only shows development of new – not a true picture of existing trees and rows of trees and what condition they are in and where roots will be cut or buried, etc.
3. Fencing would need to go up to protect existing trees prior to any development on the property.
4. This plan does not meet code for numbers of trees for open space.
5. The Parks Department would like to see more tree species for street trees as well, with a minimum of 6 different tree species.

Sanitation Department:

1. Changes to the placement of trash enclosures will need to be made.

2. Please contact Mark Abel from Sanitation for proper placements.

Police Department:    No comment received.

Fire Department:

1. Modify the geometrics of the following two islands by either shorting the islands to 30’ or increasing each drive lane to 20’.
1. Island at entrance from Wakarusa Drive.
2. Island east of internal Champion Lane proposed roundabout.

Southwestern Bell:

1. Need to provide utility easements throughout project.
2. A meeting with the Developer, Westar, Aquila, Southern Star Central Gas, SBC & Sunflower on utility issues would probably be beneficial to all to discuss location and width of utility easements.

Aquila: No comment received.

Southern Star Central Gas:    No comment received.

Sunflower Cablevision: No comment received.

Westar Energy/KPL:  No comment received.

Transportation Planner:

1. General comment: Since the development plan has been revised from the original submittal, the consultant should review the August 2004 TIS to determine if assumptions, analyses, and recommendations are still valid. Trip generation and distribution should be added for the proposed hotel site at the NW corner of the property.
2. Right-in on 6^th St.: No access will be permitted at this location. Traffic from this location should be reallocated to other access points.
3. Roundabout at Folks & Overland: Note consultant recommendation for future multi-lane roundabout at Folks/Overland intersection. Issue of future multi-lane roundabout vs. signalized intersection. While Folks is presently designated as a collector, future traffic volume estimates might suggest redesignation to minor arterial. Folks from 6^th to Overland and possibly north to Peterson will require likely widening to provide additional capacity.
4. Signalization of Overland Dr. and Wakarusa: Concur with need for interim all-way stop control until such time as traffic signals are warranted.
5. Three Lanes on Overland Dr.: consultant mentioned that the existing roadway is 32’, not sufficient to provide left turns lanes without widening. Consultant recommends construction of separate eastbound left and right turn lanes on Overland at Folks.  This conflicts with previous recommendation for a roundabout at this location.
6. Extend Champion Lane from W. 6^th Street to Overland Drive: Consultant should re-analyze traffic distribution and intersection analysis assuming Champion Lane as a through collector street.

Planning Comments:

Streets

1. Right-in on W. 6^th Street. Access has been previously purchased by KDOT and is not available along W. 6^th Street except for Champion Lane.
2. Champion Lane. Champion Lane is a public right-of-way and is required to connect W.  6^th Street to Overland Drive and the intersection should consist of a full-size roundabout. This will provide an additional access to the high school with W. 6^th Street and take some of the load off of Folks Road and Wakarusa Drive; and it will slow down the traffic in front of the high school.
3. Overland Drive should be widened to 3 lanes.
4. Street and street intersection improvements will need to be made per Public Works.
5. Traffic Study will need to be revised based upon street changes to plan.

Zoning

5. The zoning [Z-06-19-03] - Ordinance No. 7756 for the existing PCD-2 portion of the project (Overland Drive to the north, Champion Lane right-of-way to the east, W. 6^th Street to the south, and Wakarusa Drive to the west) was approved subject to the following conditions:

(a) No building permit will be issued until the W. 6^th Street Project is substantially completed.

(b) No one building shall be larger than 50,000 gross square feet of space.

(c) There be no more than 62,000 gross square feet of retail commercial space.

(d) A specific list of uses and restricted used were approved as part of the rezoning ordinance. 

A copy of Ordinances No. 7756 and 7757 is attached. A number of proposed uses appear to be specifically restricted in the PCD-2 area including the following: automobile service, eating establishment with a drive thru, hotel, motel, and bank with a drive-thru. Residential uses do not appear as a permitted use in the PCD-2 area. The applicant has submitted rezoning applications that if approved, would provide for these uses.

6. The residential density based upon net residential acres needs to be calculated and shown on the PRD portion per Section 20-1007(A). Residential density for the PCD portion should also be shown (number of residential dwelling units for Lots 9 and 10.)
7. Calculations and information concerning the hotel/conference center need to be included.

Setbacks

1. A 50’ building and parking lot setback from W. 6^th Street is required per Section 21-1201
2. All residential buildings, residential structures and residential parking lots need to be set back from the periphery boundary not less than 35 feet.
3. All commercial buildings, commercial structures and commercial parking lots need to be set back from the periphery boundary not less than 30 feet.
4. Setbacks between residential structures of 10’ are required within the PRD portion, unless a waiver is granted and building codes will need to be met.

OPEN SPACE

5. Please provide a graphic on where the open-air recreation use/common open space is located for the commercial area and for the residential area (minimum of 20 percent is required within the PRD and within the PCD).

ADDITIONAL INFOMATION that should be shown on the Preliminary Development Plan:

10. The owners of record and any other parties having an interest in the proposed development. GIS information shows Carolina LTD and Henry’s Flowers L.L.C. to be owners.
11. The location and width of proposed utilities need to be shown throughout the project. The Preliminary Development Plan acts as the Preliminary Plat. Sewer mains would be required to touch each lot. Concern with location and adequate room for Utility Easements.
12. The location, dimension, acreage, and ownership of all proposed public and private recreation areas, open space and non-encroachable areas.
13. Public cross access easements and proposed public cross access easement dedications.
14. A schedule showing the proposed time and sequence within which the applications for final approval of all portions of the Planned Unit Development are intended to be filed. The development phases as shown on the time schedule shall also be indicated on the plan.
15. List the type of surfacing and base course proposed for all parking, loading and walkway areas.
16. The following residential note needs to be added, “The plan has been designed to comply with the minimum provisions of the Final Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, 24 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Appendix II, of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended.”
17. A photometric plan will need to be provided as the project goes forward. Light sources need to be shielded to prevent point source glare from adjacent properties or streets.
18.  Need to make sure that handicap sidewalk ramps are installed where the sidewalks intersect with curb & gutters and with handicap parking spaces throughout the project.
19. Need to review placement of sidewalks throughout project.
20. Pedestrian crossing of wider driveway entrances should be located so a pedestrian can safely wait at the driveway median. 
21. Planning Director is recommending that sidewalk along W. 6^th Street be parallel to W. 6^th Street, rather than curving.
22. Handicap parking spaces need to be located as close as possible to entrances to building entrances.
23. Proposed location(s) of U.S. Mail service cluster boxes should be shown on the plan.
24. Please provide additional information on the location and calculation of the required 20% common open space.
25. Please provide the number of bedrooms for multiple-family apartment dwelling units in each of the Big House structures and for mixed-use Lots 9 and 10 (to determine minimum number of required parking spaces).
26. Separate Block and Lot numbers should be provided to meet Plat requirements.
27. How will the individual dwelling units and commercial tenants be addressed?
28. Please show a typical detail for the accessory structures for the residential A and B units. What will be the use of these accessory structures (garage bays, 1 or 2 story, guest houses, rental units)?
29. Please show the type and location of any fencing proposed within the development.
30. Will individual fences be permitted or prohibited within the project?
31. Provide height/materials of trash enclosures.
32. How will trash collection be handled for the PRD and POD areas?
33. Appears Lot 10 building calculation gross building area should be doubled, as it shows as 2 stories.
34. The proposed number of trees appears to be less than the required number of trees.
35. Waiver request for less than 10’ between residential structures per Section 20-1007(3) needs to be provided.
36. Additional specific information on why requested waivers and variance should be provided from the applicant for Planning Commission consideration.

ATTACHMENT “C” Minutes from April 2005 Planning Commission Meeting

04/27/05

ITEM NO. 19A:         PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BAUER FARM; NORTH OF W. 6^TH STREET AND EAST OF WAKARSUA DRIVE (PGP)

PDP-03-02-05:  Preliminary Development Plan for Bauer Farm.  This proposed planned commercial development, planned residential development and planned office development contains approximately 43.88 acres.  The property is generally described as being located north  of W. 6^th Street (U.S. Highway 40) between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., contract purchaser, and Carolena Ltd & Henrysflower, LLC, property owners of record.

04/27/05

ITEM NO. 19B:         PRD-2 to POD-1; 2.59 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 6^TH STREET AND EAST OF WAKARSUA DRIVE (PGP)

Z-03-16-05:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.59 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to POD-1 (Planned Office Development) District.  The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6^th Street (U.S. Highway 40) between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., contract purchaser, and Carolena Ltd & Henrysflower, LLC, property owners of record.

04/27/05

ITEM NO. 19C:         PRD-2 to PCD-2; 8.23 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 6^TH STREET AND EAST OF WAKARSUA DRIVE (PGP)

Z-03-17-05:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 8.23 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to PCD-2 (Planned Office Development) District.  The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6^th Street (U.S. Highway 40) between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., contract purchaser, and Carolena Ltd & Henrysflower, LLC, property owners of record.

Items 19A – 19C were discussed simultaneously.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Burress referenced the list of reasons given in the Staff Report for denying the Preliminary Development Plan, followed by the statement that Staff did not have enough information to form a recommendation.  He said it appeared the applicant had submitted the development plan in order to receive input from the Commission.  Burress said this was reasonable, but asked if it was a legitimate use of procedures.

Eichhorn said he thought the Planning Commission should take action on the items as submitted.

Angino said the Commission could provide guidance on some of the identified issues, but some of the plan deficiencies were strictly City Commission issues.  He did not want to spend a lot of time talking about things that they had no control over.

Riordan said he was concerned about considering an item with no findings and no staff recommendation.

It was suggested that “Use of Process for Feedback” be placed on the Parking Lot list for future discussion.

Ms. Finger said that Staff’s recommendation would logically have been for denial because so much of the proposed development plan did not meet code.  However, the applicant wanted to present a new concept and there was no forum for that discussion without bringing it forward in this manner. 

No recommendation was given because, in Staff’s opinion, the project was not ready to move forward to the City Commission.  However, the item had been in the office for several months and Staff needed direction on how to evaluate deviations from code.

The Commission discussed how to proceed.  Some felt the issues were numerous but small and the Commission should apply themselves to one problem at time.  Others felt it was ambitious to think the Commission could provide adequate direction tonight.  It was suggested that the Commission call a study session, either tonight or at another time, to informally review and comment on the proposal.  It was alternately noted that a new subcommittee would be formed later tonight that would be ideal to study this problem.

The Commission discussed whether to deal with the proposal according to the current code, considering the waivers and variance as requested.  It was suggested that it would be more appropriate to craft text amendments to the current code to make the project conforming.  The other alternative was to make sure the design standards used in the proposal were reflected in the new code that was anticipated for adoption in late 2005.  It was pointed out that both options would take about the same amount of time. 

Concern was expressed that the Commission was setting a bad precedent of allowing unfinished projects to use the public hearing process to gather comments.

It was discussed that the proposal included many design elements the city wanted to pursue, but it was premature to try to apply these standards today.

The applicant responded to questioning that he would like to continue with the public hearing.  The Commission agreed to continue the items as regular agenda issues.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Patterson described the items surrounding the request for a Planned Unit Development encompassing two areas bisected by Champion Lane.  He identified the proposed street network and land uses.

Mr. Patterson outlined the restrictions that were applied to the rezoning approvals in 2004 for the sections east and west of Champion Lane.  He also described the density and types of housing units for each section of the development.

It was noted that the development had no access to W. 6^th Street other than Champion Lane.  KDOT had previously purchased the right-of-way for access management that would be needed for the proposed right-in/right-out access point.  KDOT would not be receptive to additional access points to the controlled highway.

Mr. Patterson gave an overview of the multiple comments received from City Departments.  He said Staff could recommend approval of the two rezonings, subject to conditions as listed, but could not at this time make a recommendation on the Preliminary Development Plan.

Krebs referenced the regulations applied to Community Commercial development, noting that this node was identified as a CC200 and was already overbuilt.  Ms. Finger explained that the Comprehensive Plan recognized that the node was already beyond the 200,000 square foot limit, and recommended a total of 62,000 additional gross square feet of commercial space for this corner. 

It was verified that the Commission could restrict the PCD zoning to specific uses (i.e. Community Theater).

Staff explained that one variance was requested in addition to the 8 waivers to allow a reduced street setback along W. 6^th Street.  This would create a much different streetscape than existed today and would become more complicated if/when 6^th Street expansion was needed.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Phil Struble introduced a number of people present to speak on behalf of the development.  Mr. Struble corrected the previous statement, saying this was not a request for input.  This development had been in process for over a year and the applicant wanted to move forward.

Mr. Struble said the New Urbanism standards shown in this proposal were an efficient way to design that had been applied to three projects in the Kansas City area.  He described the lengthy process the applicant went through in discussing these developments with Kansas City Planning Staff. 

Mr. Struble said the (Kansas City) City Department comments were not unique, that the departments wanted the same thing they always wanted but that these things were not efficient.  He described discussions with the Sanitation Department, saying the department had hated the proposal at first.  However, lengthy educational discussions resulted in successful negotiations.

Mike Treanor said he was excited about introducing a new concept in Lawrence for a mixed-use development with 24-hour activity.   He said he had spent a lot of time visiting similar developments nationwide, “seeing how they work.” 

Mr. Treanor said this project was designed to conform to the new development code and the new commercial design guidelines.  It would be nice to have a workshop format to bring forward new concepts like this one for discussion, but there was no such provision in today’s code.

Mr. Treanor spoke about the elements included in the proposed development, including design (landscaping, setback, street network, pedestrian network, etc.), use mixes and centralized civic uses. 

Mr. Struble listed positive elements of the proposed development:

· Centralized community theater – allows entire evening of activities without driving;

· Unique living experience – structures, parking types and layout that aids in diverting  traffic from residential areas and slowing traffic overall;

· Transition for single-family;

· Interesting, pedestrian-friendly streetscape;

· Walkable – sidewalks lead to activity centers and eliminate the 80’ right-of-way that bisects the site;

· Four-sided architecture for commercial uses – parking not readily visible from the outside and ability to block off central commercial street for activity

Mr. Struble addressed the issues raised by Staff:

· Density – This development proposes 12.5 dwelling units per acre, similar to a relatively low multi-family use.

· Vertical integration – This kind of integration is focused at one end of the proposal.

· Champion Lane – This street is key to the community theater element.  Free State High School does not need additional access and there were good land use reasons to eliminate it.

· Right-in/right-out – The applicant does not own access rights to the subject property.  Talks are going on with KDOT about a right-in/right-out, and KDOT has the final say, even if the Commission approves this design.

· Allowable uses – The applicant understands that additional zoning will be required.  This is a hybrid proposal some uses – not all – will need to cater to the motoring public (drive-thrus).

· Widening Overland Drive – There is a misunderstanding about this.  The applicant is willing to improve the road as needed for safety but feels it will not be necessary to widen the entire stretch of road to achieve reasonable safety.

· Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan – This plan follows the Commercial Design Guidelines by providing infill development, a broad range of uses, medium density, creative focal points and integration with the neighborhood.

Burress said it was known that W. 6^th Street would fail within 10 years and asked if the applicant could still do the project if the City retained adequate right-of-way for future street improvements.  Mr. Struble said this would be possible.

Burress referenced connectivity problems that would arise if Champion Lane were blocked.  He asked if the applicant could achieve the desired effect by using boulevards.  Mr. Struble said it would be possible but more difficult to accomplish the same level of pedestrian connectivity.

Burress suggested improving Overland Drive as a boulevard to allow a high, controlled density.  Mr. Struble said the developer was committed to providing a safe road network.

It was discussed that the City was in the process of hiring a consultant to evaluate the Market Study and that will be made available to the Commission.

Burress said he would like to see a detailed pedestrian map, because he thought there were a couple areas that would be difficult for handicapped persons.

Various applicant representatives responded to Commission questions:

· KDOT did share their opinion with the applicant that W. 6^th Street would fail and would require improvements in the next 10 years.  However, KDOT representatives also stated that the intersection failures would be at other sections of W. 6^th Street and would have nothing to do with this project.

· One reason to keep Champion Lane closed is to prevent cut-through traffic during peak hours at the high school.  However, this project is designed to lead traffic in other directions.

· The W. 6^th Street & Folks Road sidewalk systems will provide (pedestrian) integration with adjacent neighborhoods.

· This proposal includes 61,350 square feet of retail space, which did not include office and bank space.

· The taller (three-story) mixed-use buildings are proposed in the center of the development, leaving single-story commercial buildings along W. 6^th Street.

· Some of the commercial buildings along W. 6^th Street would include drive-thru uses.  The applicant was thinking more of banks, but a fast-food component would be a necessary element.

· The traffic impact study does take drive-thru uses into consideration as part of the commercial center.

· The original nodal plan had not allowed drive-thru uses for the northeast corner because of traffic generation concerns, but at least two City Commissioners had agreed with Mr. Struble’s opposition to that restriction when the original plan was considered.

· The lots are proposed to range in size from the minimum 4,000 square feet to 1/2 an acre.  A waiver is requested to allow approximately 15 residential lots of 3,500 square feet.

· Lot sizes, setbacks and patterns are (urban design) formula driven.

· Data on housing costs is not yet available.  As an approximation, a High School teacher should be able to afford a housing unit in the proposed development.   

· Many of the proposed housing units will be condominiums.

· The developer hopes to have design control over franchises and other businesses in the development.

PUBLIC HEARING

Gwen Klingenberg spoke on behalf of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association.  She said KDOT was in the process of completing a CORSIM model of W. 6^th Street and Wakarusa, and preliminary results indicated this intersection would function at a ‘D’ Level of Service with the proposed project in place. 

The Association appreciated the development concept, but felt it was unfortunate this was proposed for an area already prone to traffic concerns.  Ms. Klingenberg noted a few existing traffic safety issues and asked the Commission to consider the impact of this development on existing neighborhoods.

It was discussed that a stoplight would not be placed on Champion Lane if it did not connect because it was currently a private drive.  It was verified that State policy was not to signalize private access drives.

Allen Black spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters, expressing concern about the issues raised by Staff and the number of waivers requested.  The League asked that the Commission not rezone the area until a plan was in place.  They also asked that rezoning be conditioned upon specific uses and housing types.

Mr. Black responded to questioning that the League would prefer that a plan was in place before rezoning were approved, rather than approving the rezoning conditioned upon an approved plan.

Doni Mooberry-Slough, President of the Lawrence Community Theatre, said the theater had outgrown its current location and was excited about an opportunity to be a part of the proposed mixed-use development.  She said the theatre would be active from 5-7 nights a week and had other activities going on during the daytime.

Alan Cowles spoke on behalf of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, providing more detail about the Association’s traffic concerns.  He said 6^th & Wakarusa was already planned as a very high-volume intersection and more development was already approved for that intersection.  The Association was concerned that every piece of currently-vacant land along W. 6^th Street would ask for and be allowed to develop to its maximum capacity. 

Mr. Cowles said the Association liked the proposal and asked what kind of protection the neighborhoods had if this development did not go through.

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Struble said the applicant would like to move out of the current holding pattern.  If the Commission could not support the proposal, Mr. Struble asked that they provide some kind of direction.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Several Commissioners expressed varied concerns about traffic generation and capacity.  It was established through numerous questions that each potential use shown on the plan had been included (and possibly over-anticipated) in the TIS.  The TIS also used ITE standard averages to take into account traffic coming in from all directions.

Jennings suggested that this kind of development would generate less traffic than other uses, since the majority of shops are destination stores with less draw than something like a grocery store.  He also said some Commissioners were imagining the development much larger than it really was.  This development would equate in size to about one Downtown block.

Mr. Walstead supplied requested traffic data, saying the development would generate about 1200 trips at the p.m. peak hour on a week day and about 25-30% would be pass-by traffic.

Mr. Struble responded to questioning that the applicant acknowledged the need to provide adequate open space and was not requesting a waiver to reduce the required open space.  However, recalculating the entire project for each modification was time-consuming and the applicant did not want to go into that process multiple times until receiving the Commission’s opinion on the plan.

There was discussion about the possibility of a Convention Center with or without an accompanying hotel use. 

Mr. Treanor said KDOT agreed with the applicant about the value of right-turn access points to get traffic off W. 6^th Street, but they had a standing order from the executive committee not to allow right-in/right-out access on 6^th Street.  He said the proposal would return to the executive committee with a right-in only design.

Mr. Walstead said the biggest impact to 6^th & Wakarusa traffic would be the construction of a 15^th Street connection to Highway K-10.

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Patterson said the Commission needed to understand how much more difficult it was to bring forward this kind of proposal than a conventional rezoning and development plan.  Encouragement was needed to show that this a direction the community wanted to head, as well as a ‘road map’ for how to move in that direction.

Burress asked if Staff could produce a cleaner report in one month?  Ms. Finger said Staff would have nothing to add until given direction about what was acceptable.  Staff asked for concrete direction, particularly about the waivers and variance.  She noted that returning with a new Staff Report assumed a revised development plan.

Haase said he thought it was Staff’s role, not the Commission’s, to give advice on what code sections needed to be varied.  He asked what kind of time Staff would need to bring back a report stating “what rules make sense.” 

Riordan said there seemed to be two large issues - staying within the square footage guidelines for commercial space and the potential widening of 6^th Street.  He was comfortable leaving other issues to Staff.

Eichhorn asked if an overlay district would simplify the situation, understanding that this would not be possible until the new code was in place.

Ms. Finger repeated that Staff had nothing to work within except the current code.  Without additional direction, Staff could only advise the applicant to bring back a completely different plan that conformed to the current regulations.  Deferring or otherwise delaying the issue for additional Staff review was pointless unless the Commission provided direction.  Ms. Finger said Staff supported moving forward with some kind of New Urbanism, but it was ad hoc to do this while writing the code.

It was clarified that granting the requested waivers was not enough to support plan approval.  Many other pieces of information were lacking and were needed before Staff could make a recommendation on the development plan.

Haase asked for Staff’s opinion on how the Commission should proceed.  Ms. Finger said the Staff Report requested guidance.  This did not necessarily mean assurance that the project would or would not be approved, but required some indication of whether this was the direction the Commission wanted to go.  She said it was possible to craft regulations following that direction, although this may be premature in light of the new subcommittee being formed and the upcoming New Urbanism conference.  She added that it would take just as long to amend the current code to allow this type of development as it would take to get the proposed new code adopted. 

Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, said the applicant might not leave with approval tonight, but he would like to know if there was a sentiment that this was the right direction.  If so, the applicant could begin discussions with City Departments and KDOT.  He asked if the Commission would walk through the 8 waivers and comment if there were any that would be flatly refused.  In Staff’s opinion, there was not enough information to act on the waivers or the variance request.

Ms. Finger asked for a straw poll indicating whether the Commission was leaning towards amending the existing code or creating an overlay for use with the new code.  Burress asked which option the applicant preferred.  Mr. Treanor said these issues were being dealt with across the nation and the applicant had waited a long time to get this “test project” off the ground, while the City worked on the new code and new design guidelines.  He said further time delays were significant.

It was suggested that amending the old code was inefficient, since it may become obsolete within 6 months.

It was discussed that, because of due process, getting the new code in place could not be sped up significantly.  Staff anticipated adoption in late 2005.

Haase said he would be willing to recognize any member of the public that wished to address the issues on the floor.

Mary Doveton, Director of the Lawrence Community Theater, said the theater was a non-profit organization and therefore could not do any fundraising for its potential relocation until the project was approved.  Once the project was approved, the theater faced at least 2-years of concept development before they would bring forward their own plan.  She supported a common-sense approach to expedite the process for the good of the community as a whole.

Jennings suggested proceeding with the existing code, giving the applicant some concrete direction about what elements must be changed and what might be acceptable.  He commented that delays increased residential costs.  Angino said it appeared that the Commission had no control over certain delays – it would take at least 6-7 months to get the project approved, even using the current code.

Burress asked to separate the issues of new vs. old code and direction on the waivers.  He suggested directing Staff to pursue the overlay district option and giving the applicant an idea of which waivers they (the Commission) did not oppose. 

The Commission agreed that the 6^th Street setbacks were the most significant area of concern.  Several Commissioners stated that they did not feel that Champion Lane should be connected. Others felt this would be an appropriate design. Other specific comments related to the total amount of commercial space and the inclusion of “so many” drive-thrus.”

Staff noted that multiple street trees were shown in the utility easement along 6^th Street and would not be allowed to be placed in that location.

Mr. Struble responded to questioning that the applicant would like to act on the rezonings, with the understanding that each would be conditioned upon approval of a development plan. 

It was discussed that the Commission could talk about the overlay district option at the May Mid-Month meeting.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Angino to direct Staff to proceed with the development of an overlay district for the area identified in the Preliminary Development Plan for Bauer Farm [PDP-03-02-05].

            Motion carried 8-1-1, with Angino, Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor.  Jennings voted in opposition and Lawson abstained.

Angino and Lawson left at 10:25 p.m.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Burress suggested a motion to table the development plan would be appropriate and asked what time frame would be adequate.  Ms. Finger said Staff would not be comfortable with recommending waivers without policy support.  At least 6-7 months would be needed for the new code to “catch up”.  Burress suggested tabling for less time and considering what progress had been made.

ACTION TAKEN

Item 19A

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Riordan to table Item 19A for four (4) months.

          Motion carried 6-2, with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor.  Eichhorn and Jennings voted in opposition.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Burress said he could not support the rezonings without a development plan.  This was because there was no way to know what conditions needed to be applied.  Mr. Struble said the applicant would prefer to move ahead, but would defer to the Commission’s decision to delay the items.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Krebs to table Items 19B & 19C for four (4) months.

          Motion carried unanimously, 8-0. 

DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION

Mr. Herndon asked what would take place when the items returned to the Commission in 4 months.  It was clarified that two processes would take place simultaneously:

1. The Commission would form a new subcommittee that would work with Staff on developing an overlay district for the subject area that would allow the use of alternate design elements as proposed.  The use of such an overlay district would become available with the adoption of the new code.

2. The applicant will work with Staff regarding the waivers, possibly resulting in a revised development plan based on the direction given by the Commission tonight.  However, Staff was hesitant to allow the use of these waivers without initiating an accompanying set of code amendments.  These amendments would be discussed as part of this option.

In four months, the Commission would evaluate the progress of both options.  The applicant was asked to be prepared at that time to provide more information about traffic on 6^th Street.

The meeting was extended until adjourned by the Chair with unanimous consent.

Haase questioned Staff about the availability of information gathered as part of the Market Study.  Ms. Finger said her knowledge of this process was incomplete, but she understood that some of the data gathered was privileged information and not available to the public-at-large.  It was pointed out that this applicant had hired the market study consultant, when Chapter 6 required an independent consultant hired by the City at the applicant’s expense.  Ms. Finger said the applicant was allowed to use his own consultant because this project was in process before Chapter 6 was adopted.

In response to the speakers from the Lawrence Community Theater, the Commission stated that the theater was seen as a positive element and the theater expansion would be encouraged as part of the community.

ATTACHMENT –  D

AREA PLAN - W. 6^th/WAKARUSA DRIVE

The following area plan information comes from AN AREA PLAN FOR THE INTERSECTION AREA OF WEST 6^TH STREET & WAKARUSA DRIVE. The area plan was approved by the Lawrence City Commission on December 2, 2003.

The West 6^th Street/Wakarusa Drive study area is anticipated to evolve into one of the more prominent commercial centers of the community.  The Lawrence City Commission has directed City staff to ensure new development at this intersection area is appropriate for the surrounding neighborhoods and also within the context of the entire community.  The City Commission has also directed City staff to ensure that new development is compatible with existing development located within and adjacent to the intersection area.  Any development proposals for this intersection will come under close scrutiny to ensure this direction is abided by.  The following land use recommendations regarding the development of the West 6^th Street/Wakarusa Drive study area are based on the analysis of the above identified existing conditions and envisioned future of this intersection area.  In addition to the recommendations below, it is recommended that no building permits be issued for the study area until the West 6^th Street Improvement Project is substantially completed.

The Area East of Wakarusa Drive

The area located east of Wakarusa Drive (the northeast corner of the West 6^th Street/Wakarusa Drive intersection) is recommended as most appropriate for commercial development of a non-retail focus.  As three (3) corners of this intersection are likely to develop as retail centers, it is recommended the remaining corner incorporate less-intensive commercial development.  This corner is in closest proximity to the high school complex and indoor aquatic center to the north and adjacent residential neighborhoods to the northeast.  It is recommended the existing A, Agricultural, zoning designation be rezoned to PCD-2 with restrictions.  The restriction being that the development of this corner of the intersection incorporate some kind of recreational commercial use, mixed-use office-residential activity, public or semi-public/institutional use, or other such use or activity that can be demonstrated as having a less intensive impact on traffic patterns and surrounding land use activities and neighborhoods.  It is also recommended that up to 62,000 gross square feet would be permissible for retail commercial use if planned as part of an overall development plan incorporating a mix of uses that are designed to be pedestrian-friendly.

The Area West of Folks Road

The area located west of Folks Road (the northwest corner of the West 6^th Street/Folks Road intersection) is recommended as most appropriate for medium- to high- density residential development.  This area could also serve well as a mixed office-residential development or public/semi-public/institutional use.  It is recommended no commercial, retail or otherwise, be located at this intersection as such activity would disrupt the residential character and feel of adjacent land use activities and residential neighborhoods.  Commercial activity at this intersection would also expand the commercial center at West 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive from a center into a strip development, which is in conflict with the goals and policies of Horizon 2020 and the Northwest Plan.  It is recommended the existing A, Agricultural, zoning designation be rezoned to PRD-2 with the intent of encouraging a mixed-use office-residential development that would be complimentary to existing and future developments and neighborhoods.

Additional Recommendations

It is also recommended that the total allowable retail commercial square footage be limited to 440,000 gsf for the four corners of the West 6^th Street/Wakarusa Drive intersection.  In the event the approved development plan for 154,000gsf on the northwest corner of West 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive expires or otherwise becomes null and void, the total square footage allowed at the intersection will be reduced to 420,000 gsf.  A breakdown of square footage allocation is illustrated in the table below.

Total Square Footage Allowed	440,000gsf*	420,000gsf+
Southside of West 6^th Street (existing development)	224,000gsf	224,000gsf
Northwest Corner of West 6^th Street/Wakarusa Drive	154,000gsf	136,000gsf
Northeast Corner of West 6^th Street/Wakarusa Drive	62,000gsf	60,000gsf
Note: * = with approved development plan on northwest corner; + = without approved plan