PC Minutes 7/26/06-DRAFT

ITEM NO. 9: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MIRACON PLAZA; NORTHEAST CORNER OF WAKARUSA DRIVE & CLINTON PARKWAY (LAP)

PDP-01-03-06: Preliminary Development Plan for Miracon Plaza. This proposed planned commercial development contains approximate 5.05 acres and proposes a convenience store, commercial/office buildings, and a restaurant. The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of Wakarusa Drive and Clinton Parkway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Off-Piste, Inc., property owners of record. This item was deferred from the March Planning Commission meeting.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Pool, Staff, gave an overview of the Preliminary Development Plan for Miracon Plaza. The project is a planned commercial development with 12,700 square feet of commercial space and includes uses within the parameters of its existing zoning. There is no car wash proposed. This item was deferred from March Planning Commission meeting to allow for revisions to the plan. The City Commission denied a request for rezoning to expand uses in May. The plan was submitted and reviewed prior to the adoption of the Commercial Design Guidelines 2006 but was reviewed for conformance. Staff has made recommendations to the applicant based upon the draft of the CDG. Staff is recommending approval subject to conditions and revised conditions, 3d, f, i & j.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Tim Herndon, Landplan, for applicant, Tim Schmidt and Terry Campbell also in attendance, stated significant changes were made to the plan out of necessity. The applicant had hoped to expand commercial square footage beyond what was approved in 1998 to fully utilize the potential of the site. The plan is in complete conformance with the previously approved zoning. The applicant generally concurs with Staff recommendations with the exception of condition 3d. Mr. Herndon proposed revising the condition to say that Public Improvement Plans should be submitted prior to the recording of the Final Development Plan. Typically Public Improvement Plans are submitted for review after the planning documents are approved. The applicant would be happy to submit the Public Improvement Plans prior to recording Final Plan, but to do so prior to project approval is an unfair burden. Herndon requested the words “with final development plan” be changed to “prior to recording of final development plan.” Herndon asked for clarification of the second point of the items Burress had mentioned regarding his ex parte discussion with Ms. Lichtwardt.

Burress replied that the point was that Miracon is a neighborhood shopping center that neighbors cannot access without walking a long distance.

Herndon stated that every effort is being made to make the site as accessible as possible. The site is unique because it is separated from the neighborhood by a huge ravine. There are sidewalks from the public right-of-way to the buildings.

Harkins commented that the site has been modified over the years to make it buildable. He questioned whether the gasoline tanks will be located underground and if there are any safety issues with the fill material used. Herndon replied that the gasoline tanks will be installed within KDHE requirements and building codes.

Erickson questioned whether permeable surface is impractical because of cost.

Herndon stated that a permeable surface is not being used due the variants in weather and temperature experienced in the area. The freeze/thaw cycle in addition to the use of snow plows contributes to the degradation of the surface. The stormwater plan has accommodated any potential issues with runoff.

Erickson commented that there is a great deal of extra parking and asked Herndon to explain the reason. She wondered if the mix of uses is driving up the number of spaces.

Herndon said there is not excess parking; it exceeds the City minimum but a successful commercial business in a peak hour situation will use the parking. It is there to ensure the site functions properly.

Haase stated that Staff listed a number of suggestions for elements of the Commercial Design Guidelines that could be included in the project, but has still recommended approval without these conditions. As the Commercial Design Guidelines have been adopted, the Planning Commission will need to look at what can be improved.

Herndon replied that 21 elements relating to the CDG were posed by Staff during the review of the project prior to the adoption of the CDG. The project has been in process since January and the majority of the Staff suggestions were addressed. Because of the topographical drop from Wakarusa to the bottom of the development, 60% of the buildings cannot be placed along the street. ADA access would be difficult if the building was moved and the parking lot intended to serve the public would not be conveniently located. An effort was made to break up the parking. Herndon continued that the plan takes the constraints of the site into account and tries to maximize the lot. He believes the spirit of the CDG has been met in the best possible way.

Pool stated the items that Staff chose to recommend were the ones that would fit in with the topography of the site and could be integrated without total redesign of the project as a compromise.

Haase questioned why none of the recommended changes appear as conditions of approval.

Pool said the Planning Commission could recommend the suggestions as conditions.

Herndon stated that in relation to the suggestions:

1. Irrigation will be included in the development.
2. Pedestrian areas are already well lit by parking lot lights and building lighting. Bollards may be a maintenance and safety issue.
3. As a focal point, the site is just about 50% green space and the code requires 20%. There are more than double the required trees excluding street trees; the green space doesn’t stop at the property line. The entire site is going to be a focal point and will contain a lighted monument sign. The site will fulfill the condition of a focal point within 200 feet of the intersection but adding a fountain would be a disproportionate and unfair burden to impose.
4. Weather protection will not be an issue.
5. The project preserves 20% of the existing trees. Some of the trees that are in the drainage way will need to be removed to meet City standards. The existing trees on Clinton Parkway will be retained. The actual percentage has not been calculated, but Herndon is certain they are preserving 20%.
6. There will be a delineation of pedestrian routes with a sidewalk crossing that is painted or has special pavement and the routes will be provided as necessary and required by the Guidelines.
7. Downspouts on the building are very easy to do as an architectural feature.
8. Herndon is least comfortable with the requirement for natural building materials. The plans have called for an Italian villa look that will require a variety of materials.

Haase agreed with Herndon and said that the major argument is that site is not big enough for a major focal element like a fountain.

Burress asked if Herndon would prefer “native” be substituted for “natural” building materials.

Herndon did not feel the language made a difference but thought there would be financial implications to imposing this guideline.

Burress stated he would like to see a line of sight drawing for what the property will look like as motorists drive by the property.

Herndon provided a cross section through site and building elevations.

Eichhorn asked how far down line A is from Wakarusa and if there is a smooth transition down.

Herndon replied the line is between 14 & 15 feet below the Wakarusa Drive grade elevation and there is a slope down the side into the building. The restaurant exterior walls will be retaining walls.

Burress questioned the height of the buildings in relation to the street.

Herndon explained the upper elevation of the buildings is 952 feet and Wakarusa elevation is 962 feet. The peak of the roof may be 10 feet higher than street elevation but the building is set very low on the site.

Finkeldei asked for Staff comment regarding condition 3.

Pool said condition 3 was initiated by the City Engineer who wanted to confirm dedication of the rights-of-way and easements.

Eichhorn questioned whether the condition is standard or if it is an anomaly.

Stogsdill explained that it is an anomaly that was brought in as a condition because of topographical improvements and concerns. Typically the condition would be imposed prior to filing the Final Plan. Staff has had multiple conversations with the City Engineer regarding the condition.

Harkins asked for applicant response to Stogsdill’s statement.

Herndon replied that Landplan is committed to keeping to a sequential order that does not harm their clients. With this condition, the client is being asked to perform a land survey at a cost of approximately $30,000 without assurance that the Final Development Plan will be approved. Submittal of the Public Improvement Plans will occur prior to the recording of the Final Development Plan, which is the standard way it is done. Herndon does not see how the City could be compromised or harmed.

Burress requested that Staff explain the difference between filing a Public Improvement Plan when the Plat is recorded versus when it is submitted.

Stogsdill said the City Engineer has asked for the PIP to be submitted prior to Final Development Plan approval, as geometric improvements may change rights-of-way and easements. Once the City Commission approves the Preliminary Development Plan, the project is essentially approved. It is highly unlikely to have a recommendation of denial on a Final Development Plan that is consistent with the PDP.

Pool stated that PIPs are generally a condition of the filing of the FDP; the reason the City Engineer asked for it with the FDP submittal is that she would like to make sure proper easements and rights-of-ways are provided.

Burress questioned the ability of the Planning Commission to adjust the plan once the Final Development Plan stage is reached.

Stogsdill replied that the plan would have to go back to the PDP stage if there were substantial changes.

Harkins asked if this condition is significant departure from common practice and if so, what the underlying compelling reason for the departure from standard practices.

Pool said the PDP shows a median on Wakarusa Drive that city engineers do not feel is acceptable. The prior condition of approval was revised. This current condition is what the engineer wanted to see.

Herndon responded that the former condition 3d in the Staff Report involved the left- bound turn lane into Wakarusa Court. He contended the condition is unusual, inconsistent and unfair. The original condition had the provision of a lane that went to the north and turned left into the car wash, and the traffic study did not indicate it was warranted. The City Engineer agreed. The revised condition now states that the PIP be submitted with the FDP, rather than upon filing of the FDP.

Stogsdill suggested recommending action on the development plan which would be forwarded to the City Commission in 3 weeks. This might allow for clarification to the language. The City Commission would then be able to approve or deny the conditions of approval.

PUBLIC HEARING

No members of the public spoke regarding this item.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Burress questioned what is being given back to the community by this project.

Herndon stated the public will have a site that consists of 2/3 open green space and 1/3 development, twice the amount of trees required by Code and more accessible and well- maintained and businesses at a viable intersection.

Burress asked which, of the items mentioned by Herndon, do not apply to conventional development and if a car wash is allowed.

Herndon stated he did not have an adequate response to the first portion of the question, but a car wash is not allowed in the zoning of the property.

Burress stated that neighborhood access is an issue and asked for the cost associated with building a bridge to allow access across the ravine.

Herndon estimated a bridge would cost around $250,000 for a 100 foot wide bridge, but it would not provide access from Killarney Court which runs south and backs up to single- family homes. The residents that would benefit from the bridge already have access to the site.

Jennings believed the developer did as good a job as possible given a very difficult site. He thought people do not understand how low to the street the buildings will be. He said the Commission should be careful with the level of restrictions being placed on the project.

Harkins agreed with Jennings; the site has had issues for many years and it is obvious a lot of time and effort have been spent making it buildable. He feels this is a good solution to a problem lot. Harkins stated his concerns are with the procedure, not the project, and he will vote to approve the plan without the provision in 3d, as there is still an opportunity to protect the City’s interests.

Stogsdill recommended either modifying the condition or continuing the conversation with the applicant or leaving it as is.

Harkins stated he did not have enough information to move forward with Staff recommendations and he would like to give the applicant an opportunity to have a longer discussion.

Finkeldei said that he feels more comfortable accepting the change from the applicant that a compelling reason can be made to the City Commission and he did not feel comfortable taking the route of accepting the extraordinary condition.

ACTION TAKEN

Haase moved, Harris seconded, approval of the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Miracon Plaza with revisions to 3d to be changed to “prior to recording of Final Development Plan” and adding conditions requiring weather protection, downspouts as an architectural feature and irrigation with the caveat that Staff continue discussion with Public Works regarding condition 3d prior to the City Commission meeting, and forwarding the application to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following conditions:

1. Submittal and approval of a Downstream Sanitary Sewer Analysis.

2. Submittal of a waterline depth survey to the City Utilities Department, as the 24-inch waterline along Wakarusa Drive may need to be lowered or relocated due to the widening of the roadway.

3. Revision of the plan to include the following:

a) On sheet 2, replacement of “10’ u/e and a/e” with “10’ u/e and p/e”.

b) A note, stating that the detention pond will be privately-owned and maintained. The developer is responsible for establishing ownership and maintenance of the detention area via individual owner maintenance.

c) Retention of right-of-way near the main curb cut off Wakarusa Drive for a future transit shelter and pad.

d) A note, stating that public improvement plans showing the construction of all required geometric improvements will be provided for review and approval prior to recording of the final development plan. The median on the north leg of Wakarusa Drive and Clinton Parkway shall be modified as necessary and all geometric improvements shall have proper lane alignment, lane configuration, and lane tapers as required by AASHTO and the MUTCD.

e) Site furnishings at retail entryways.

f) A note, stating An Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for the construction of traffic signals and intersection improvements at Wakarusa Drive and Wakarusa Court is required as a condition of Final Development Plan approval.

g) Revision of General Note #25 to correct the spelling of “easement”.

h) A note, stating that all site and public infrastructure improvements will be completed prior to occupancy of the first completed building.

i) Indication of the limits of site improvements for each building, as no phasing is shown for the project.

j) A note, stating that weather protection will be provided within 30 feet of customer entryways.

k) A note, stating that downspouts will be designed as an architectural feature of each building.

l) A note, stating that appropriate irrigation will be provided for landscaped areas.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Burress noted applicant’s argument against native building materials is not specific to this case but is opposed to the rule in general. Burress stated he would vote against approval due, in part, to a letter from a competitor that states he will be forced out of business. The project is not meeting the needs of the community and believes this is not an especially needed development. It does not serve the neighborhood.

Eichhorn stated the applicant cannot be responsible for bad design of previous buildings in the area.

Jennings commented that the plan was initially before the Planning Commission several months ago and he did not feel it is fair to change the rules on the developer when they have done what was asked of them and they meet requirements.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was for approval of the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Miracon Plaza with revisions to 3d to be changed to “prior to recording of Final Development Plan” and adding conditions requiring weather protection, downspouts as an architectural feature and irrigation with the caveat that Staff continue discussion with Public Works regarding condition 3d prior to the City Commission meeting, and forwarding the application to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the above conditions.

Motion carried 7-1, with Burress in opposition.