PC Minutes 9/27/06

ITEM NO. 14:           PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MERCATO; N OF HWY 40 & E OF HWY K-10 (MKM)

 

PDP-08-08-06:  Preliminary Development Plan for Mercato. The plan proposes a mixed use development containing 337,700 square feet on 10 lots and approximately 45 acres. The property is generally described as being located North of Highway 40 and East of Highway K-10. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Kentucky Place, L.C., Venture Properties, Inc., Scottsdale Properties, L.C., JDS Kansas, L.C., and Tat Land Holding Co., L.C., property owners of record.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mary Miller, Staff, gave an introduction and overview.  She said the area is currently undeveloped and has been reviewed with the 1966 Zoning Ordinance and Commercial Design Standards (CDS).  She stated the final plat has been approved by the Planning Commission but has not been heard by the City Commission. The development plan has a 175,000 square foot building, 2 buildings of 50,000 & 60,000 square feet and 7 smaller perimeter pad site buildings.  Ms. Miller described the driveways, access easements and traffic considerations.  She said the phase development schedule did not include a timing element which the applicant must provide.  Ms. Miller stated one condition listed in the staff report is that the applicant provide rough grading to reduce site disruption and allow vegetation to be established; the applicant did not feel this would be possible and the City’s Infrastructure Coordinator felt it would be difficult for the applicant to provide the grading, therefore the condition has been revised.   

 

Ms. Miller stated that some of the CDS review standards are only applicable to the Final Development Plan (FDP) and the applicant was made aware that they would be required in the final stage.  She said the applicant provided Staff with graphics that indicate the common open space and public space being provided is adequate and the applicant has agreed that details will be shown on the FDP.  Ms. Miller said that Staff would like to compliment the applicant on the planned pedestrian connectivity.  Staff offered two suggestions to improve pedestrian and bicyclist connectivity:

1.      Applicant should build a 10 foot pathway to connect the terminus of the central 10 foot pathway on George Williams Way to the intersection of George Williams Way and W 6th Street.

2.      Applicant should extend the pathway from Lot 3, Block One to the central pathway.

 

Ms. Miller said the applicant has provided approximately 300 more parking spaces than currently required and stated that 50% of the excess parking must be paved with a permeable surface.  This requirement can be waived if additional interior landscaping is provided in an area equal to the amount of permeable surface which was required.  

She said the stormwater management is adequate enough to accommodate the additional parking spaces, but additional interior parking lot landscaping is needed to break up the expanse of parking for Lot 1, Block One. 

 

Ms. Miller discussed two communications that were received regarding this development plan; one is from counsel for the applicant requesting Condition 1 be revised regarding the benefit district.  Ms. Miller said the City Utilities Engineer indicated the benefit district will have to be redistributed and said to retain this condition.  An additional communication was received from the League of Women Voters stating concern that the Retail Market Study and Traffic Impact Study have not been completed.  Ms. Miller said that both are complete.  The League was also concerned that there was nothing preventing the largest building from being a mall.  Ms. Miller pointed out that the PCD zoning condition 3(g) requires that one store with more than 40,000 square feet be designated as a “single store” building.  The 175,000 square foot building is the only retail building with greater than 40,000 square feet and it will be designated as a “single store” building on the plan.   Ms. Miller said that Staff is recommending approval of the applicant’s request subject to the revised conditions contained in the September 27, 2006 memo to the Planning Commission. 

 

Applicant presentation

Jane Eldredge, Barber Emerson, for the applicant stated all recommendations made by Staff are acceptable with the exception of Condition 1 regarding the benefit district.  Ms. Eldredge said the property is in sewer benefit districts with the exception of 17 acres which is outside of this property.  She continued that the 17 acres is outside the legal area of this Planned Commercial Development (PCD). 

 

Ms. Eldredge showed graphics of the PCD and outlined connectivity and green space.  She said this development is unlike anything else in Lawrence or Douglas County.  The development will have a 50 foot easement with street trees on 6th Street.  She said Mercato Drive is a public street with trees on both sides.  Ms. Eldredge then discussed drawings of the project’s architectural elements.

 

Ms. Eldredge stated the PDP is consistent with Horizon 2020 (H2020), Chapter 6 and the nodal plan and zoning has been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Commission.  She said the plan meets all CDs.  Ms. Eldredge does not believe there is authority to impose Condition 1 on the 17 acres not part of the PDP. 

 

Comm. Jennings questioned the distance from 6th Street to the larger building. 

 

Ms. Eldredge replied it is 1025 feet back, in excess of 3 football fields.  The Target store is approximately 650-700 feet from Iowa. 

 

Comm. Harris asked if the frontage road will be vacated with this phase.

 

Ms. Eldredge said the frontage road will be vacated when Overland Drive connected to the frontage road. 

 

Tim Herndon. Landplan, stated that Overland Drive needs to be constructed westward to meet the frontage road and the disconnection will occur at that time.   

 

Comm. Eichhorn expressed concerns with removing the benefit district condition, particularly as the City has indicated it is needed. 

 

Phil Struble, Landplan, said the preliminary plat has an agreement not to protest the benefit district.  He feels this condition is a duplication and the concern is the addition of a condition that pertains to 17 acres that are not part of this project. 

 

Comm. Eichhorn asked if the pump station is adjacent to the property. 

 

Mr. Struble replied that there is an existing pump station near the project.  He said the proposed pump station is beyond the limits of this request. 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

No members of the public spoke regarding this item.

 

CLOSING COMMENTS

Ms. Eldredge said this is a complicated project and the Staff has been terrific.  She stated the applicants have worked hard with Staff to move forward.  Ms. Eldredge read an excerpt from the February Planning Commission minutes in which Comm. Haase stated “you can count on me.”

 

Ms. Miller clarified that in the Commercial Design Standards review the view from 6th Street is more a pedestrian viewpoint when looking at the landscaping of the parking lot.

 

Comm. Harris asked for information on the 6th Street sidewalk.

 

Mr. Herndon explained that the sidewalk is the closest thing to 6th Street and is existing.

 

Comm. Harkins asked for Staff comment on the benefit district concerns.

 

Ms. Miller replied in speaking with both Phillip Ciesielski, Utilities Engineer, and Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, both stated there was a need for the benefit district. 

 

Comm. Burress asked about the project not addressing timing and asked if this project can be absorbed. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill answered that there was an evaluation of the Retail Market Study (RMS) when the zoning was proposed.  The City’s consultant reviewed Northgate, Mercato and Bauer Farm and concluded all of the proposed square footage can be absorbed. 

 

Comm. Haase questioned the placement of a notation restricting use on various building and limiting retail square footage. 

 

Ms. Miller stated the notation would be on the PDP and limits are contained in the summary table (Condition 3D).

 

Comm. Haase asked if the applicant would accept the same condition as placed on Northgate. [“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.”  ]

 

Ms. Eldredge stated the applicant would not accept the Northgate condition as they do not believe it is legal to impose it.

 

Comm. Haase asked John Miller if he believed the Northgate condition regarding specific use of commercial retail properties could be imposed by the Planning Commission. 

 

Mr. Miller said he was not familiar with the Northgate issue and would have to perform research regarding context and how it relates specifically to this project. 

 

Comm. Haase questioned if it would be appropriate to add the condition with the understanding that it would be reviewed by Legal Services and removed if it was found to be unlawful. 

 

Mr. Miller stated it could be done prior to the PDP moving forward to City Commission for approval.

 

Comm. Harkins asked Ms. Eldredge to explain why she believes the condition is not legal.

 

Ms. Eldredge cited Kansas State Law, Chapter 12-742(a) which states the need for an ordinance that outlines how and where to restrict uses and that restrictions must be uniform in every district.  She also discussed the exception in City Code Section 20-1004.1 that allows uses to be restricted at the time of zoning.  She said zoning restrictions must be included in zoning ordinance that is published and may also be shown with a note on the PDP but publication should not be confused with restriction.

 

Ms. Eldredge also noted that City Code 20-1005 has a prohibition against applying restrictions on a project that were not in place at the time the project was started.  She said there cannot be additional restrictions attached at the time of the Final Development Plan.  Ms. Eldredge stated that you have to base decisions on the law today and what exists now, not what the restrictions might be in the future. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that historically, uses in PCD’s have been restricted in the PDP or zoning stages.  She agreed that it would not be fair to approve the PDP with a set of uses, have the FDP submitted and not have the applicant know in advance whether the uses will be allowed.  She said that restriction of uses should be on the front end of the process.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Finkeldei complimented Staff on a fine presentation and said he appreciated the applicants bringing in good visuals that show the use of the project.

 

Comm. Jennings said his only concern is that commercial tenants need to be seen and there will need to be a big name retailer to draw in customers.  He stated it may be difficult for the buildings to be seen, particularly with the volume of trees between the street and building, and that everyone needs to be realistic to make this successful. 

 

Comm. Lawson questioned what is available to the businesses for signage. 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that signs are regulated by Neighborhood Resources.  She said there will be wall signs facing two streets and a monument sign for the entire development.  Ms. Stogsdill stated the applicant can request additional or different signage through the Sign Code Board of Appeals.    

 

Comm. Harkins said he believes this is a first class development that is good for the west gateway.  He stated he was impressed. 

 

Comm. Harris asked if there was a way to compromise on the first condition.  She stated her reluctance to remove a condition Staff recommends and asked if the same verbiage was used on the previous Condition 2.

 

Mr. Herndon stated the agreement not to protest has already been signed and recorded with the Douglas County Register of Deeds.  He said the condition exists and has been fulfilled. 

 

Ms Eldredge said all of this land is in the benefit district and has been paying into the benefit district.  She stated the concern about the condition is that the 17 acres is a different piece of ground that has already been recorded as part of a larger project.  She said nothing can happen on the 17 acres until there is an actual sewer benefit district and that this could end up delaying final approval on this piece of ground.  Ms. Eldredge stated she does not want to see something offsite hold up the larger project. 

 

Comm. Burress asked Staff for an explanation of why the condition is warranted. 

 

Ms. Miller replied that the City Engineer said the 17 acre property was annexed and the benefit district needs to be redistributed. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill stated she believes it is reasonable to strike the condition here and resolve it with the Utilities Department before the request goes to the City Commission.

 

Comm. Eichhorn said he is concerned with Condition 3A and he does not know if he has ever seen it before. 

 

Ms. Miller said the condition is common on many plats and development plans and is about ensuring that if a revision is made, all owners would have to be notified.  She said most would rather not be involved with every modification.

 

Comm. Burress asked if the project’s design standards meet the Commercial Design Standards.

 

Ms. Miller replied that it was not 100% in line but the design standards’ intent is to meet a goal and, for the most part, this project does that.

 

Comm. Burress questioned whether the development is walkable and noted there is substantial space between the stores. 

 

Ms. Miller said she believed it was walkable.

 

Comm. Burress asked if the plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan commercial chapter and if the project is held to the Comprehensive Plan in place at the start of the development or the one in place when the Planning Commission gives approval. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that the commercial chapter has not changed.  It was updated in January 2004 and this application was submitted in 2005.  She stated the mechanism is not yet in place to measure absorption and it would be inconsistent to depart from that.

 

Comm. Krebs questioned the 300 additional parking spots that are being planned beyond what is required.  She asked if the additional landscaping will reduce the total number of parking spaces. 

 

Ms. Miller said the additional landscaping would impact the parking to a certain extent but it would not be extensive. 

 

Comm. Jennings asked about the connectivity to the recreational path along the bypass.  He commented that he hoped to there would be a willingness to allow parking for those wishing to use the recreational path and believes this could be a definite asset. 

 

Mr. Herndon said there is a 10 foot wide central path that permeates the site and their west side of the development will be an attempt to extend it to connect to the recreational path at some point.

 

Comm. Haase suggested the applicant look at the concept of groves of landscaping rather than islands.  He stated the project is well designed and a compliment to the community. 

 

Comm. Lawson asked for clarification on the conditions that are acceptable.

 

Ms. Miller said the second portion of Condition 1 regarding municipal utilities will be struck. 

 

Comm. Lawson asked if this was the applicant’s understanding. 

 

Ms. Eldredge replied in the affirmative. 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Finkeldei, to recommend approval of the Mercato Preliminary Development Plan and forward to the City Commission based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:

1.      Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for municipal utilities  street improvements to Overland Drive between George Williams Way and the frontage road; George Williams Way from West Sixth Street to Overland Drive; Mercato Drive; and Mercato Way; (to be executed by all property owners within the PCD).

2.      Loading area for Lot 3 Block One may be unworkable. It must be confirmed that adequate room exists for truck traffic and maneuvers without affecting vehicular or pedestrian traffic or the loading area must be relocated.

  1. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to include:

a.      note stating that all property owners of all properties waive their right to approve or disapprove any alterations or modifications to the preliminary development plan per Section 20-1011(f) of the City Code, if that is the intent of the applicants;

b.      note stating that a ‘Use of Right-of-Way’ permit must be obtained from KDOT before any work may be done within the highway right-of-way. KDOT has requested that the following information be provided on the plan: A condition of the permit will be that the developer takes financial and physical responsibility for closure of the frontage road;

c.      note which identifies ownership and designates responsibility for maintaining the open areas;

d.      a note stating that no other buildings, beyond those specified for retail commercial use in Phase I and II on this plan’s summary table are allowed to be developed with retail commercial uses;

e.      note that additional pedestrian connections to the development on the west will be added when the property to the west has developed;

f.       note 16 must be revised to read: No building permits will be issued until the completion of either George Williams Way or Overland Drive to the subdivision;

g.      note added to the plan identifying the building with more than 40,000 GSF which will be a single store building;

h.      note added that all rough grading will be completed to the degree necessary to facilitate stormwater management and installation of utilities in Phase I.

i.         correct current zoning designations;

j.        the phasing schedule must include a time schedule for applications for final approval of all phases;

k.      revised phasing schedule to show that the detention basin will be constructed with Phase I of the development;

l.         Mercato Drive and Overland Drive must be revised with 3 lanes of traffic with center turn lane. If a revised TIS shows 3 lanes are not warranted, this condition will be removed.

Staff recommends the submittal of additional TIS data that analyzes turning movements on Mercato Drive. This information will assist Staff in making the determination on the number of lanes required on Mercato Drive.

l.      Execute an Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for   Mercato Drive for future expansion in the event the road is constructed with 2 lanes and the future traffic data demonstrate a need for a middle turning lane or left hand turning lanes

m.   Shared access easement between Lots 1 and 2 of Block One, and Lots 2 and 3 of Block Two, to provide access in the event of property ownership change.

n.      The driveway between Lot 3 Block One, and the shared driveway between Lots 2 and 3, Block Two must be offset;

o.      fire hydrant locations must be added to the plan per Fire Inspector’s requirement;

p.      pedestrian connection from the southern boundary of the development to the walkway along W 6th Street, if possible with the grade change;

q.      open space summary must be revised to reflect the amount of common open space, rather than all pervious surface per lot;

r.       the common open space must be marked on the plan and the total area noted;

s.      Lot 1, Block Two must be reconfigured to remove the parking area and dumpster from the peripheral boundary; and

t.       the 10’ pedestrian/bike path must be extended from its point of exit on George Williams Way southward along the west side of George Williams Way to the W 6th Street and George Williams Way intersection to allow bicyclists to connect to the 10’ path along W 6th Street.

u.      15’ drainage easement located in northwest corner of parking lot in Lot 1, Block One must be removed or relocated, per City Stormwater Engineer’s approval.

 

Conditions of approval from the Commercial Design Standards & Guidelines Review:

1)     The plan must be revised to show the dimensions included in the focal points, entry and intersection features.

2)     All areas proposed for streetscape treatment must be marked on the plan with dimensions listed to equal 60% of the street frontage. 

3)     The plan must show the sidewalk adjacent to the west side of the building on Lot 3 Block One being extended to the center pedestrian path with a notation that it will be extended if possible with the grade change;

4)     The driveways between Lot 3, Block One and the shared drive between Lots 2 and 3, Block Two must be offset to reduce possible vehicle conflicts;

5)     Staff recommends extending the center 10’ pedestrian/bicycle path from its terminus on George Williams Way south  to W 6th Street, to provide connection with the pedestrian/bicycle path on W 6th Street.

6)     The plan must be revised to relocate the access aisle so it is not adjacent to the building, or design features must be provided which will reduce the possibility of vehicle/pedestrian conflict. If the main access aisle is to remain adjacent to the building it must include design features, such as raised surfaces, bulb outs, etc which would accomplish the goals of the Commercial Design Standards.

7)     The applicant will provide a summary of the amount of interior parking lot landscaping provided in Lot 1, Block One and Lot 5, Block Two and Staff will determine the amount of additional interior parking lot landscaping required to meet the goals of the Commercial Design Standards.  The plan must be revised to reflect the additional interior landscaping for Lot 1, Block One in addition to the 15% of interior landscaping required by the Zoning Ordinance.

8)     Staff recommends increasing pedestrian access through the parking lot of Lot 1, Block One by either providing two walkways, with one being in the southern portion of the lot or to provide one more centrally located pedestrian accessway which would line up with the crosswalks across Mercato Drive.

9)     Any portion of the building facades with pedestrian walkways, that does not have an arcade or other similar feature will need to provide an 8’ area for foundation plantings.

10) The plan must be revised to demarcate the areas set aside as ‘public space’. 21,297 sq. ft. of public open space is required.

11) A note must be placed on the landscaping plan stating that 1/3 of the plantings must be evergreens. Street Trees are excluded from this requirement.

 

 

Motion carried 9-1 with Comm. Burress in opposition.

 

 

          Adjourn 9:55 p.m.