PC minutes 01/25/06

ITEM NO.13: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR NORTHGATE COMMERCIAL; SOUTH OF W. 6^TH STREET BETWEEN GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) AND THE SOUTH LAWRENCE TRAFFICWAY/K10 (SLD)

PDP-09-08-05: Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Northgate Commercial (aka: Diamondhead). This proposed planned commercial development contains approximately 31.005 acres. The property is generally described as being located south of W. 6^th Street between George Williams Way (extended) and the South Lawrence Trafficway/K-10. The plan proposes 198,714 gross square feet of commercial uses including a convenience store, drug store, bank, and five other retail buildings. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Diamondhead Limited Partnership, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Sandra Day, Planning Staff, introduced the item and discussed how the proposed development complied with the design standards and where it deviated from the standards. She stated that the project was envisioned as (and in fact has begun to develop) as an integrated mixed use development including residential, townhome, apartment/office and commercial uses. Actual planning began in the mid 1990 with meetings between staff and the applicant to determine basic zoning districts to delineate the general areas of the project. She described the commercial area and the surrounding land uses and development pattern. The following physical constraints to development of the property included; access control, exclusive easement, depth of property. Other constraints noted by Day were:

· Surrounded on 4 sides by public right-of-way

· Grade changes that result in the property sitting lower than the street level. Limit on the total amount of retail area (Square Footage)

· Land use decisions of the surrounding area

· Existing code requirements

Day stated that by design or nature, a PDP is not intended to function as a final document thus some details such as site lighting, final landscape plans (appearance), and building finishes are specific details that occur in a Final Development Plan consideration. She noted, however, that the proposed plan did comply with the current code requirements as noted in the staff report. It also provides many elements identified in the Commercial Design Standards that are also code requirements such as stormwater provisions, parking area, and open space requirements.

Day next outlined the format for the review of the development using the commercial design guidelines. She stated that there is subjectivity to the review format as it exists today and noted there were numerous items that were not applicable to the property because of location or proximity to right-of-way on all sides.

Many items required in the Commercial Design Guidelines are of an architectural nature and not appropriately considered at this time as part of a Preliminary Development Plan except in the abstract or to indicate what is expected with a Final Development Plan.

Finally, Day stated that there were some items that could be revised and/or conditioned to result in a closer concurrency with the intent of the Commercial Design Standards. Simple modifications, in building orientation and in access, will better meet the intent of the Commercial design Standards and enhance the customer or public experience of the site. Amenities such as planters, street furniture and light fixtures will be detail elements anticipated with the final development plan and subject to Staff and Planning Commission Review.

Day stated that staff had not altered the recommended conditions based on the review of the Commercial Design Standards. If the Commission is so desirous, a general note could be added to require that such items as light fixtures and public areas within the development be designed with a pedestrian scale and that details of such element shall be provided with the submission of a final development plan

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering, provided an update of the project. He noted that it has been in process since 2001. There have been many revisions to the development plan. He addressed recommended condition number 4A and stated concerns that timing of the intersection improvements were established base on phasing of the development plan and based on the traffic generated per phase of development. He further stated that many of the specific uses were unknown at this time and that applicant couldn’t address many of the design standards until specific users are identified.

Brian Kubota, applicant, stated that the proposed project had been delayed while a nodal plan was developed; traffic and market studies were prepared. He noted that with regard to the adjacent abutting areas no residential uses are adjacent because of the perimeter streets.

· He stated there was assurance of overview of the project and that the Planning Commission will review it many times with subsequent Final Development Plans and revised Preliminary Development Plans as applicable.

· Covenants will be established to address aesthetic issues, maintenance, buildings, trash, signage, etc.

· The plan would need to conform to retail studies.

· The project needs to orient to neighborhood uses to the south and east. Thee will be community uses to service the larger neighborhood.

· Only one access to George Williams Way and Highway 40 is available until 15^th Street interchange is building.

Mr. Kubota described the difficulty in defining a time frame for phasing. These were based on marketing and tenant occupancy. He didn’t know the absorption rate and so could not define dates of phases. The development would have a strong neighborhood focus until 15^th Street is completed. The addition of “community uses” was not expected that would result in the development of the project as a regional commercial project. He noted that the most significant issue is access to the development is restricted to George Williams Way as the only point of access.

Commission Questions:

Commissioner Harris asked that the truck circulation be described. Mr. Maurer responded to this question to demonstrate adequate circulation was accommodated.

Commissioner Lawson confirmed that the north access is right-in/right-out only. He asked Mr. Kubota to comment on a development time table.

Mr. Kubota state the project is market driven and that the western half of the development was based on the extension of Ken Ridge Drive. The eastern part of the development has identified users. Phasing was discussed a follows: Phase 1 is estimated to occur in 12 months, Phases 2 and 3 to occur in an estimated 2 years, Phases 4 and 5 could take up to 8 years to complete the total development.

Commissioner Haase asked if an economic analysis was provided. Staff responded that a market study had been provided. He referred to Horizon 2020 Policy 3.11 and noted that no analysis of impact on specific segments of the retail market had been provided. He argued that the development should be tied to phasing based on absorption.

Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the parking was excessive. Applicants responded that it was not known. The parking exceeds code, but is less than typical for national retailers. Mr. Maurer responded that without specific uses it was difficult to determine actual needs.

Mr. Kubota stated that the proposed development plan was intended to be flexible. He quoted that the application was accompanied with a $15,000 market study.

Commissioner Haase asked the applicant to respond to Condition Number 4A of the staff report. Staff stated that the condition was in response to an identified concern about multiple construction interruptions to the intersection as the project is phases/developed.

Commissioner Burress asked if it was acceptable to defer all improvements until Phase 4.

Commissioner Ermeling stated that it was reasonable to have some condition about integrated design theme so that the use of national stock facades would not dominate the development.

Commissioner Burress stated concern that he didn’t know what the project would look like from W. 6^th Street. Mr. Maurer described the area with a hill 7-8’ higher than the street and the building dropping about 12’ to the south. He stated that the buildings would be more visible from George Williams Way. The convenience store will be higher than George Williams Way.

Commissioner Burress asked for more screening along W. 6^th Street to screen roofs and cars. He asked that this be addressed with the Final Development Plan.

Commissioner Eichhorn stated a concern about the condition that Final Development Plans be designed to new design guidelines. Mr. Kubota responded that he was in substantial agreement with the March 2005 guidelines.

Vice Chair Krebs inquired about the maximum square feet allowed in a CC 400 district and how it would be distributed.

Commissioner Ermeling asked if the Commission could limit the project to mitigate impacts.

PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no public comment on this item.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Jennings asked if there was a time limit on permitted uses?

CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Kubota stated that design in the first phase is important to maintain values for future phases and he was willing to use the design manual as guidelines specific to the March 2005 version.

Ms. Day stated the need to add a note referencing Section 20-1011(f) regarding future changes and property owner participation of such change or waiving that right.

Commissioner Jennings noted that the City currently has a restrictive sign ordinance. He did not think it was necessary to add additional restrictions to handicap visibility of the center if there is a desire for it to be successful.

Commissioner Burress indicated that was not a concern of his.

Vice Chair Krebs requested a discussion of the amount of commercial space that should be allowed at this intersection. She inquired about the ULI guidelines and stated there was an average of 150,000 SF but that it ranged from 100,000 to 450,000 SF

Commissioner Haase stated that distribution of commercial space was defined in Horizon 2020 and addressed in the comprehensive review in Chapter 6. He stated that there was a need to attach a condition on the Preliminary Development Plan deferring some design guidelines to the Final Development Plan.

Vice Chair Krebs state that the commission needed to address building location, orientation to streets, pedestrian scaled spaces, parking layout, framing Ken Ridge Drive where there is more pedestrian access and was not comfortable with the building envelopes.

Commissioner Haase stated the development plan does not come close to achieving a lot of what the standards are aimed at and note the presence of the pipeline as a real constraint to building locations.

Vice Chair Krebs restated her opinion that the bank, drugstore, and C-store do not frame the primary access.

Commissioner Ermeling asked about the ability to relocate buildings.

Commissioner Haase stated that the proposed design keeps parking in smaller groups. Commissioner Lawson agreed with that observation.

Commissioner Lawson stated the applicant had done a good job of proposing only portions of the total square foot and expected quality development.

The Commission discussed the required intersection improvements as follows:

Commissioner Eichhorn had concerns about too much cost upfront. The left turn lane for George Williams Way was most important.

Commissioner Harris stated that geometric improvements for he intersection as necessary should b provided before each phase of the commercial development.

Ms. Stogsdill stated the applicant and staff could work on language before the City Commission meeting.

Commissioner Haase stated it would be nice to have a financing mechanism to building the ultimate improvements. He noted that traffic warrants are an important factor.

Commissioner Eichhorn asked applicant to define which improvements would be installed with each phase. Ms. Day state that it was included in the phasing plan which was conditioned to be revised to include construction dates. Mr. Kubota added that traffic engineering also evaluated the north side and that some improvements may be needed as a result of development to the north prior to Northgate’s Phase E occupancy.

Vice Chair Krebs requested a presentation about the changes that could be made to the development as they apply to the design guidelines.

Ms. Day presented a summary of the proposed development’s consistency with the Design guidelines. She described the process that when into the review and noted that specific evaluations such as topographic limits had not been evaluated for the proposed concepts to be described. She also noted the time and preparation that had gone into this presentation and the need for multiple staff involvement not just from the planning office to provide this response. The following items were noted as possibility that could improve consistency such as:

· Relocating the center drive aisle to provide parking adjacent to the buildings;

· Provision of additional pedestrian pathways in the west end on a diagonal from Ken Ridge Drive and from W. 6^th Street to the main building on the east side; and

· Reoriented building pattern from the bank and drugstore that would frame the main access way though the development.

Mr. Kubota was asked by Commissioner Eichhorn to provide his opinions on these ideas. Mr. Kubota responded that the pedestrian connections were good. He noted that they had examined the bank and drug store locations and found that the grade made orientation very difficult. The perimeter drive was designed without parking to allow for service vehicles such as trash trucks to circulate. He liked the idea of using pervious surface for access parking spaces. The elimination of the drive adjacent to the building may conflict with fire land requirements and would like to do a nice plaza area out front.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Ermeling, seconded by Commissioner Haase to recommend approval of the PDP-09-08-05 and forward the item to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:

1. Approval and recording of a Final Plat prior to release of a Final Development Plan for issuance of any building permits for any portion of the proposed development;

2. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future street and intersection improvements for W. 6^th Street, George Williams Way and Ken Ridge Drive;

3. Execution of an agreement not to protest benefit district for traffic signals at W. 6^th& George Williams Way;

4. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states:

a. ~~“Geometric improvements for the intersection of~~ ~~W. 6^th Street~~ ~~and~~ ~~George Williams Way~~ ~~shall be constructed with the initial phase of commercial development.”~~

5. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to provide a phasing plan per 20-1010(b) (13) that shows timing of improvements ;

6. Provision of a note referring to Section 20-1011(f) allowing for a waiver of property rights to change the plan in the future.

7. Provision of tow pedestrian paths in the west and central portion soothe development; and

8. Revision of 4A as follows: “Geometric improvements for the intersection of W. 6^th Street and George Williams Way shall be constructed as necessary before each phase of commercial development”

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Commissioner Haase stated he thought there was a need for a condition to provide a complete market study. The study needed to define if use restrictions are identified using integrated sales tax information study when market impact analysis completed, if use restrictions are identified those uses may be restricted at the Final Development Plan stage.

Commissioner Eichhorn stated that Commissioner Haase’s suggestion is vital but he was uncomfortable with it.

Commissioner Jennings stated that he would not support the motion because of this last condition. It was saying that we will only accept what we have, we will never get better uses and this is a restraint of trade.

Commissioner Haase stated that then the comprehensive plan should be changed if it is not going to be followed. The Development Strategies study does not address the impacts in other areas of town.

Commissioner Burress stated that with regard to retail impact, the total square footage was only part of the question. Review of uses service-by-service was required. The motion doesn’t get at the total amount. His concern was not about specific uses but with the total amount of commercial square footage allowed.

Commissioner Haase stated that market analysis with identified sectors was needed and that there needs to be an indication of lake or excess of uses. He asked what category does vacant space go in?

Commissioner Burress stated the concern as one of oversupply versus undersupply and if the community is overbuilding, then we will create a vacancy in the center part of town.

Commissioner Jennings stated there was less of a difference for grocery stores in Downtown and noted that Food-4-Less had just gone out of business because it was too small to compete with other grocery stores – it was obsolete.

Vice Chair Krebs asked for a reading of policy 3.11 which Ms. Stogsdill provided and read from Horizon 2020.

Commissioner Lawson asked if the Commission had used this policy before. Commissioner Haase stated that this was the first project to be submitted with this current language. Commissioner Lawson asked Commissioner Haase to state why he felt the Development Strategies study as flawed.

Commissioner Haase stated that he had reviewed dozen of studies across the county. The Planning Commission as a group hasn’t reviewed the report and needed to study the data. He couldn’t just accept the data. He noted that the 2004 and 2005 data differed.

Commissioner Jennings stated that the development would be absorbed in 3 years after completion in 11 years as described by the applicant.

Commissioner Burress noted two criteria; one, and 9 percent vacancy rage and the aggregate impact on downtown.

Commissioner Haase stated that he was following policy and may help the developer by identifying sectors that are underserved.

Commissioner Burress observed with regard to the retail market study the comparison groups were stand alone cities unlike Lawrence making them useless. The retail space uses are filled with non-retail activities of 30%.

Commissioner Ermeling stated it was not her intention to withhold square footage in the future.

Commissioner Haase stated he was adamant about the intention of Horizon 202 and the Planning Commission should take up this issue at a study session.

Commissioner Lawson asked for Commissioner Haase’s concerns and if this was intended to restrict use. Commissioner Haase stated that he was concerned about a department store.

Commissioner Lawson stated that the focus of the study was to assess total square footage and that the Final Development Plan Could restrict uses. He asked how this would be responsive to that issue.

Commissioner Haase stated that if a sector was way over-served, then adding more of that use would impact Downtown. If the Commission restricted the use, that dollars could be shifted to a different area.

ACTION TAKEN

1. Approval and recording of a Final Plat prior to release of a Final Development Plan for issuance of any building permits for any portion of the proposed development;

2. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future street and intersection improvements for W. 6^th Street, George Williams Way and Ken Ridge Drive;

3. Execution of an agreement not to protest benefit district for traffic signals at W. 6^th& George Williams Way;

4. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states:

a. ~~Geometric improvements for the intersection of~~ ~~W. 6^th Street~~ ~~and~~ ~~George Williams Way~~ ~~shall be constructed with the initial phase of commercial development.”~~

5. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to provide a phasing plan per 20-1010(b) (13) that shows timing of improvements ;

6. Provision of a note referring to Section 20-1011(f) allowing for a waiver of property rights to change the plan in the future;

7. Provision of tow pedestrian paths in the west and central portion soothe development; and

9. Provision of a note on the Preliminary Development Plan that states: “The Planning Commission shall have the authority to establish additional use restrictions on the Final Development Plan. Such restrictions may be based in part on the completed Retail Market Study database and recommendations on suggested specific uses that are not appropriate.”

Commissioner Haase stated that the parking lot islands might be combined with larger clusters instead of uniform islands.

Mr. Kubota asked if this last condition would be put on all commercial developments in the future.

Vice Chair Krebs stated it would for all commercial development over 150,000 Square Feet.

Motion carried 8 to 1 (Commissioner Jennings voted in opposition.)