EXCERPT --   CITY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2006

Consider the following items related to proposed development at the northwest corner of 6^th Street and Wakarusa.

a) Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning requests, and authorize drafting of ordinances for placement on future agenda:

Z-06-16A-06:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.21 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development with revised restrictions), located at the intersection of 6^th Street and Wakarusa, North side of Highway 40.

Z-06-16B-06:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 15.8 acres, from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development with limited uses) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development with revised use restrictions), located at the intersection of 6^th Street and Wakarusa, North side of Highway 40.

b) Consider, subject to conditions and use restrictions, PDP-06-06-06, a Preliminary Development Plan for Wal-Mart includes approximately 17.98 acres, located at the NW intersection of 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive.  The plan proposes approximately 121,500 square feet of commercial development.

Lisa Pool, Planner, presented the staff report.  She said the PRD-2 zoning was needed to allow for commercial space with commercial space limitations.  The PCD-2 rezoning from the existing PCD-2 was needed to allow for revised commercial space limitations and that property would include the four pad site buildings and the Wal-Mart building.  The total commercial retail space was limited to 128,000 square feet, which included the garden space limitation of 6,500 square feet and a feature building space limitation of 99,990 square feet.  The permitted uses for both of those districts had not been altered from the current list of permitted uses for the PCD-2 portion of the site. 

She said concerning the preliminary development plan portion of the applications, the project did include one feature building and four pad site buildings.  The feature building comprised 99,840 square feet, which was the Wal-Mart store, and 6,147 square feet for the garden center.  Each pad site building would include one of the listed PCD-2 uses, and those uses had not been identified.  Those buildings would comprise 5,000, 7,300, 7,400 and 1,800 square feet each with a total of 21,500 square feet. 

In working with the applicant on the lay out of the site and building aesthetics, staff had done some research in other communities and she provided a list of those communities. 

In looking at the performance of the plan with the Comprehensive Plan and the Area Plans, the commercial development was noted as a proposed land use for the subject corner in the Northwest Plan.  The area plan for the intersection stated the subject corner was the most appropriate corner at the intersection for commercial development of a retail focus. 

Regarding the previous action at the Planning Commission meeting on August 30^th, the Planning Commission recommended approval of both rezoning applications and those were both a 6 – 4 vote.  The Planning Commission vote on the preliminary development plan was a 5–5 vote which meant the motion failed, thus resulting in a recommendation for denial. 

She said since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant had worked with staff to revise the development plan to essentially meet the conditions of approval and in some cases alternate provisions had been utilized to fulfill the conditions due to various reasons within the site layout.  Many of the conditions of approval were related to conformance of the plan with the commercial design guidelines and the plan did meet many of those standards, especially related to pedestrian connectivity, excess landscaping, retention of existing trees and vegetation, screening of a loading dock, and many other items she had listed.  She said it was also important to note that with implementation of the commercial design guidelines it had definitely been a balancing act of weighing the standards against each other to see what worked for particular sites.  It was also important to note that all the studies associated with the plan had been approved by staff.  Some of those studies were in a state of flux at the Planning Commission meeting and they had since worked with staff to get those issues resolved.

She showed a slide of the building elevation at the front and it showed they used a variety of building materials and architectural details to break up the massing of the building.  She showed two other slides that outlined the materials used in the exterior of the building, and the materials did meet the 30% minimum requirement.  The spirit of that requirement was to use native building materials.  She said they were using synthetic slate roofing, wood brackets, quick brick, and synthetic stone venire and the applicant could speak to why those sources of synthetic materials had been used, but staff felt those materials met the spirit and intent of that particular requirement.

She said the City Commission’s action would be one of the following:

●          If the City Commission approves the Planning Commission action of denial, a majority vote of the City Commission is required;

●          If the City Commission seeks to override the Planning Commission action of denial and approve the development plan as submitted, a super-majority (4 or more) vote of the City Commission is required; or

●          If the City Commission seeks to return the development plan, with comments, to the Planning Commission, a majority vote of the City Commission is required.

She said since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant had submitted a rezoning application for a corner lot which was currently zoned Planned Residential District and they were proposing to rezone it to Open Space, which was a new district in the new code and they would utilize that lot for above ground detention where the original plan they submitted showed an underground detention area.  If the rezoning requests were approved, they would show the layout in its entirety on the final development plan.

Mayor Amyx asked how much different was this development plan from the plan the Planning Commission reviewed.

Pool said staff would not say there were significant differences.  A few differences to note would be an additional sidewalk portion along the east side; the applicant had also removed some parking and added some green space; and took 35 parking spaces and included pervious pavement, or green pavers. 

Mayor Amyx asked if the addition of the rezoning for the open space was a major change to the entire plan.

Pool said staff saw it as a significant change in the fact that it did increase their pervious surface areas of change in the detention.  The City Storm Water Engineer had actually already approved a revised drainage study.  She said staff thought the preliminary development plan did not need to show that lot with the above ground detention, but the final development plan would.

Mayor Amyx asked Pool if she believed that lot and the request to change to Open Space should be considered as part of the entire development plan.

Pool said it would perhaps help the applicant’s case for the Planning Commission to see that additional green space. 

Mayor Amyx said his main concern was that he wanted to make sure the item that had been sent to the City Commission was exactly what the Planning Commission saw with a 5–5 vote, and was the plan the City Commission was going to review at this time.

Pool said this plan did not include that lot with the Open Space or the above ground detention, so they were not considering that as part of this plan, so it was essentially the same plan.

Mayor Amyx asked when the rezoning for the Open Space would be considered.

Pool said that rezoning was scheduled for the mid November Planning Commission meeting.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the Retail Impact Analysis was submitted in final form.

Pool said the applicant’s retail market study, yes. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was sent in final form to the Planning Commission.

Pool said the Planning Commission did not see the actual study. 

Vice Mayor Hack said Commissioner Schauner was asking about the big study and it had not gone to the Planning Commission, but Pool was saying that a retail study that staff signed off on, was part of staff’s recommendation.

Pool said correct, the applicant was required to submit a retail market study for this particular project and most recently that was submitted to Planning Staff in its final form so they were able to give the okay for this particular project.

Commissioner Schauner asked what staff looked at when staff gave the final okay for that project.

Amy Miller, Planner, said staff compared the market study that was submitted by the applicant to the standards that were outlined in Horizon 2020, Chapter 6. specifically policy 3.11. 

Commissioner Schauner asked about staff’s conclusion.

Miller said the conclusion, based on the applicant’s numbers, was that it did not push the vacancy rate of the retail market for the entire city above 8%. 

Commissioner Highberger asked if Pool knew the required number of parking spaces for that project and the number provided in the current version of the plan.

Pool said she could get that information. 

Commissioner Highberger said his understanding of the Commercial Design Guidelines was they were encouraging to create more of a street front, to create a line of site at the street level.  He said the design they were looking at now had two very small buildings at the corners, which was good, but the bulk of the building was set back several hundred feet from the street.  He asked if Pool could explain how that met the Commercial Design Guidelines.

Pool said the Commercial Design Guidelines were guidelines and the review was a balancing act.  She said for this particular site, staff also looked at a portion of the guidelines that talked about specifically bringing the out lot and the pad site buildings up to the corners and the street frontage.  She said staff felt as if the applicant did that effectively in three locations.  As far as bringing the Wal-Mart store up to the front of the street, she said sometimes bringing a big box to the frontage of a principal arterial might work against the pedestrianism that they were trying to create.  She said within the context of the intersection and its surroundings, staff did not feel it was necessarily appropriate for this particular project.

Commissioner Schauner said when the City Commission considered the Bauer Farm Project, he remembered one of the selling points of that proposal was that it would be very near the street, a significantly shorter setback than had previously been required along 6^th, and that was part of the walk-ability issue, the pedestrian scale and so forth.  He asked how that was different than this project.

Pool said she was not the principal planner on that particular project.  However, she had looked at those plans and reviewed the minutes and staff reports for that plan.  She said it was a different project as a whole.  It was a mixed use project; there was not a big box per se that had been brought to the street.  The buildings that were along the street frontage in that case were smaller in scale as a whole and they did not get the continuous line of a 99,000 square foot building.

Commissioner Schauner said if he understood, it was staff’s belief that having this building set back from 6^th created a more walkable, pedestrian friendly environment than one that would bring that building closer to the street.

Pool said where the main drive aisles were, on this particular plan, needed to be looked at.  The drive aisle that went right across the front of the Wal-Mart store did not connect with Congressional and it was not the main access point for vehicles entering and exiting the site, therefore creating a more pedestrian friendly environment within the site itself and there were three connections out to 6^th Street. 

Commissioner Schauner asked what was considered the main access point to this parking lot.

Pool pointed out points along Overland Drive and Wakarusa Drive. 

Vice Mayor Hack asked Pool to walk through the amount of open spaces between the curb on 6^th or Highway 40 and where the parking lot and berm started to visualize that open space.

Pool said it was difficult to see on the plan because of the scale, but there was a 50 foot KDOT and utility easement that started in the back of the curb line, right-of-way.  In another portion were the green pavers and the 35 parking spaces, the drive aisle, and the applicant had done a nice job of grouping some islands to make larger islands of green space.  She said right along the frontage was a berm with quite a few street trees, a hedge row, and the parking lot sloped down.

Vice Mayor Hack said a person would not be looking right into the parking lot.

Pool said that was correct. 

Mayor Amyx asked if that parking lot actually had been lowered on the south end.

Pool said she would have to defer that question to the applicant.

Mayor Amyx said from 6^th Street as one would drive by, coming through the intersection, would they see half the parking, a third of the parking lot, or all of the parking lot with the berm. 

Pool said the applicant had some nice visuals to show what the area would look like with the landscaping.

Mayor Amyx asked if it was the intent of the Commission to make a decision on it this item at this time, or was this item going to be sent back to the Planning Commission with a list of items to consider including the part of the development plan which was the stormwater area to the north so the City Commission had the entire plan.  He said this was the first time since he had been on the Commission they had an opportunity to discuss this specific plan.  He said he would like some feedback before going forward with a public hearing.  He said he wanted to make sure the plan that was before the City Commission this evening was the plan the Planning Commission actually voted on for recommendation to this body.  He said if it was the intent of the City Commission to send this plan back, then this issue needed to be addressed now.

Commissioner Rundle said that was one of the options, but the City Commission would not be able to say, until they had the hearing.  He said he was willing to listen to other ideas. 

Mayor Amyx asked if this plan was substantially different enough and did the City Commission believe this was what the Planning Commission had sent the City Commission, or did the Planning Commission need another review of this plan.

Commissioner Schauner said if the question was if he felt comfortable in voting to approve this plan tonight based on the fact the Planning Commission had not even seen it, his answer would be “no.”  He said he agreed with Commissioner Rundle that he would like to hear other ideas.  He said he was not really interested in two or three public hearings on this, but on the other hand he thought it was an item that was so significant for the community, that he was more than willing to sit through a couple public hearings in order to make the best possible decision, gathering as many facts as he could.  He said perhaps a public hearing tonight was in their long term best interest on this issue.

Mayor Amyx said he would suggest the applicant give his presentation and take one hour of public comment.  He said at that point, the City Commission would decide whether or not to proceed or if the item would be sent back to the Planning Commission.

Todd Thompson, Attorney on behalf of Wal-Mart, said he would like to discuss a couple of procedural issues at the outset.  He said he thought it was too complicated to just refer to this as just “this item.”  He said there were three items, two items which were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.  He said the third item, which was the plan itself, he wanted to discuss before he went further into discussions.  He said it looked essentially like what the City Commission was seeing.  It would be a misconception to believe the Planning Commissioners had a completely different layout or a substantially different layout presented to them.  He asked if 35 of the parking spaces been designated to be pervious since the Planning Commission looked at it.  He said yes.  He asked if there had been some additional shrubbery added in a few places. He said yes.  He asked if there had been a change of a sidewalk here or there.  He said yes.  He said that was substantially the plan the Planning Commission had and it was a 5 – 5 tie when they considered the plan.  He said what they did have were about two or three dozen conditions recommended by staff on the plan and conditions were such things as additional shrubbery, location of the sidewalk, and so forth.  He said every single one of those conditions had been removed and satisfied by those revisions to the plan.  He said the Planning Commission saw a plan with a number of conditions.  He said when the plan went back, as they had asked the City Commission to send the plan back, the Planning Commission would see a plan in which all of those conditions were resolved.  He said they believed that would be more than enough to pick up an additional vote or two and get a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission.  He said it was a 5 – 5 tie, even with several dozen conditions attached. 

He said there were the two zoning items, which were recommended for approval, and a tie vote on the development plan, which statutorily was to be treated as a recommendation for denial.  In dealing with two recommendations for approval and one recommendation for denial, the City Commission had a different charge under the statute as to how they dealt with those recommendations.  If the City Commission was going to override the recommendations for approval of the two zonings, they would need to override those recommendations by a four to one vote.  He said by a 3–2 vote, the City Commission could send those zonings back to ask the Planning Commission to reconsider those recommendations because the City Commission did not like what the Planning Commission did and state why the City Commission did not like the recommendations.  He said that was not what they wanted the City Commission to do, but to consider the zoning requests as the Planning Commission and staff considered those rezonings.  They wanted the City Commission to approve those two rezoning requests. 

He said one of the conditions of each of those two rezoning requests was the ultimate approval of a development plan.  He said they had taken care of the rezoning and it would not go any farther unless a plan was approved.  He said in his letter to the City Commission several weeks ago, he asked the City Commission to send the plan back because they now had taken care of all of those conditions and would like the Planning Commissioners to take a look at the plan that was now free of conditions and had been enhanced in many ways since they looked at the plan.  He said not huge, substantial material ways, but in lots of smaller ways.

He said their request was the City Commission approve the two rezoning requests after tonight’s public hearing and send the development plan back and ask the Planning Commissioners to take a look at the plan again now that all of the conditions were removed.  He said the plan would come back to the City Commission in late November or early December for final consideration. 

He said the issue of another rezoning application came up regarding some open space on the northwest corner of this parcel.  He asked the City Commission not to punish them for making that application.  He said this had been a long and at times strained process to get where they were.  He said in what they felt was an extreme show of good faith, Wal-Mart had obtained the ability to acquire that piece of ground and was offering to rezone it to Open Space and use it for the detention.  He said that would ultimately reduce the traffic in the area because that was zoned before for apartments.  He said there would be no traffic generated by that piece of ground and there would be a lot more green space and pervious surface.  He said that issue was not before the City Commission at this time.  He said the plan they were asking the City Commission to send back to the Planning Commission stated it could go forward with the underground detention exactly as designed. 

He said he did not think they wanted to get off track and consider something that was not before the City Commission.  He asked the City Commission to look at this plan as it was presented and then send it back to the Planning Commission and ask them to take another look at the plan.  He said he would first like the City Commission to look at the rezoning issues and approve those just as staff and as the Planning Commission recommended they do. 

He said he submitted an extensive letter because he knew that time was an issue.  He said they were at the Planning Commission for five hours.  He said he tried to expedite his presentation tonight by submitting a lot of the plan to the City Commission in writing.  Nevertheless he said he wanted to highlight a few points he thought were extremely important. 

He said this City Commission, with David Dunfield instead of Mayor Amyx, voted two years ago to rezone this corner for 154,000 square feet of commercial space.  He said they were before the City Commission asking that be reduced from 154,000 to 128,000.  He said that was the issue presented to the City Commission on the rezonings.  In addition, the piece of ground that was being rezoned along Overland was being rezoned so they could take the truck dock and basically hide it.  He said it would be completely bermed so that when one would go by on Overland Drive, they would not see the truck dock.  He said they could not do that without that additional piece of ground which was the detention before and they were going to put the detention underground.  He said that was the reason for additional ground being involved, but it ended up being more green space and the purpose of it was to allow them to completely screen the loading dock.  He said that was something that was not possible if the building was located up on 6^th Street.  He said they had a reduction from either the 154,100 square feet of zoning that was in place and in litigation or the 154,000 square feet of commercial zoning the City Commission approved just a couple of years ago when Commissioner Dunfield was part of the Commission. 

In addition, the layout or plan differed dramatically from the plan that was approved four years ago.  He said the driveway, at one time, came straight across the front of the building.  It entered on the west side off of Congressional and shot straight across, and was changed to defuse the traffic through the parking lot so that when one would come out of the building would not be confronted with the main thoroughfare of the shopping center, which happened at Target and the current Wal-Mart, which used to be done a lot, but was changed and was one of the benefits of that revised layout.  He said they had brought the out buildings all the way to the corner.   

Further, the number of trees in this particular plan was substantially increased.  He said it was several times over what was required by code and also increased from what was in the previous plan.  The retaining walls had been added on the west side in the back and also in the front, south, side for the purpose of allowing some berming and hiding of the parking.  The parking lot was 7 feet below the level of 6^th Street and the pavement of the parking lot of the south end actually dipped in the middle and went two more feet down as it dipped to the collector area for stormwater which was in the middle.  He said the parking lot had been lowered and extra landscaping added for screening the vehicles.  He said the building itself had been enhanced in terms of the variety of materials.  He said there was a suggestion they would talk to the City Commission about the synthetic slate being used for the shingles.  He pointed out the City made that same choice when it improved the Airport.  The City used the synthetic like shingles on the Airport because of cost and durability and that was a prudent decision. 

As for other materials, Thompson said they increased the percentage of brick from when this plan was presented to the Planning Commission.  He said it had brick before and it had a little more brick now to meet the 30% native materials.  He said City staff advised them it was one of the materials that were considered native under the new code.  He said they increased those materials to get it up over the 30% figure. 

He said those were some highlights from the plan.  From a zoning perspective, they were asking the City Commission to reduce the number of square feet of commercial zoning on this corner which reduced traffic.  He said he hoped the City Commission would approve that and then send the plan back. 

Ray Frankenberg, Site Engineer, said there were changes on this plan from the plan that was shown at the Planning Commission.  He said they thought they were trying to follow the new urbanism approach by placing a building in a different location which was what they thought the City Commission was looking for by being pedestrian friendly and placing a building at that location.  He said in discussions with City staff and at the Planning Commission meeting, they moved that building.  He said they also took another building and moved it on the street, eliminating a couple parking spaces and putting it there so it was right on the street front.  He said those changes had been made as a result of working through the conditions that staff had at the Planning Commission. 

He said regarding how their project differed from Bauer Farms project and why they did not want such a large building near the street was that Bauer Farms did not have one large building.  He said if they wanted to look into the future saying this all might change and there would be other buildings at that location, having this large of a square footage sitting in the back left them with the opportunity with that frontage road to move back and create a city street connected through to the Bauer Farms area and to the residential area to the west, allowing buildings to come up along with their fronts or backs right along 6^th Street.  He said it worked into that approach, but they had a much larger building and one reason they could not just put the building on the street. 

He said they were able to put, at staff’s guidance and direction, parking on three sides of the building and keep the rear used for a service entrance, which was a much safer way for the citizens and for their customers to get in and out of the site and keep them separated from the commercial access and not have them walk through the trucks as opposed to having parking on that fourth side.

He said the question was asked how much parking was visible from 6^th Street.  He said they did have berms on those islands that would be three feet tall.  He said 6^th Street actually fell three feet so it ranged between seven and five feet at the lowest point, but they did have a berm all along 6^th Street that built up between two and three feet.  He said there were some spots where the change from the height of the berm where the row of evergreen shrubs were located, was as much as seven, eight and even nine feet higher than the pervious parking they put in.  He said there was a second layer of berming and large islands before one would get to the main parking, helping to split it up and diminish the view of parked cars from the street.

He said some of the items were changes as a result of the conditions from City staff and some changes came about as a result of the discussion the night of the Planning Commission meeting. 

He pointed out an area that was all a berm, with a 3–1 slope.  He said from the street all they were going to see was a grass and landscaped berm.  He said there was a 13 foot tall wall from the truck maneuvering area side.  He said when the trucks were in there pulling around, they were behind a wall that was 13 feet high, which was the legal height limit for a truck.  He said their trucks were going to be less than 13 feet high and as much as 20 feet lower than the wall on Overland Drive, so there was no way of seeing their service area behind the building. 

He also noted that Wal-Mart right now was very big on sustainability.  He said it was something that came out a year ago this October.  The CEO started a push that pushed Wal-Mart to be sustainable.  He said the box culverts and all the concrete in them were not sustainable and it took green house gases to create that concrete and build those boxes, where as putting it in an open area created an area that produced oxygen forever, the trees, grasses and so forth. 

He also noted the islands that were added as a result of staff comments.  He said four islands were added and there was landscaping added to another island that had a light in it and low level landscaping.  He said benches were also added and pedestrian lighting through out as a result of staff comments. 

He also spoke briefly about the synthetic native materials.  He said what they were trying to use was the synthetic slate shingles and the synthetic stone.  He said it was a much more long term material.  He said they would not have the limestone rotting out with freeze thaw cycles and so forth.  He said it was a material that would last and keep its appearance much longer than if they had used the native slate.  He said if they had hail or storms on a slate roof, there were a lot of repair issues and it was hard to make them look exactly like they looked before they were repaired.  He said synthetics like they used on the roof of the airport building lasted much longer, looked better, and retained their appearance.

Thompson said in addition to the quantity of landscaping, Wal-mart had agreed to purchase trees from Olathe which were far more mature than was required by City Code.  The trees would range from 4–10 inches in caliper size and the City regulations required 2½ inches.  He said this was a cost factor and an effort to show good faith that Wal-Mart had gone out and purchased those trees.  He said those trees had already been tagged and reserved if this project was approved, which they thought it should, then those trees would be brought over and planted.  He said it would look more mature and provide more screening much more quickly than a brand new development typically would have.  He said in addition to that, the new code also required a request that as many existing trees on site as possible could be retained or saved and they also agreed with that.  He said there were several really nice trees on site that would be saved.  There was a hedgerow out there that created what they referred to as toothpick trees which were tall and narrow and not much green on those trees, which were difficult to save.  He said some of those would be used, but many of those types of trees would not.  He said a significant number of trees would be saved on site.

Mayor Amyx asked Thompson if he had additional information to present.

Thompson said he would refer the City Commission to his previously submitted letter and written submittals.   He said they would remain available to respond to any questions and would like a little bit of time for rebuttal at the conclusion of the public comment.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.  He asked the public to limit their comments to the rezoning and to the development plan that was before them.  He said he believed that as many of them know, there were legal matters around this issue and asked that everyone speak to only the rezonings and the development plan.

Kirk McClure, Lawrence, spoke about the market impact analysis.  He said in the context of zoning what happened way too often in zoning was they get narrowed down to the issues of height, bulk, and use, but zoning was much more than that.  Most importantly, for this particular project, it was one of timing.  One of the big issues and the reason they furthered the notion of market impact analysis was to answer the question, could the City absorb this space without harm to the remainder of the community.  When looking at the market analysis, the answer was clearly no.  He said he had looked at this market analysis and other multiple analyses performed over the years. 

He said in 2003 the market analysis was submitted on the project and was flawed at the time.  The applicant withdrew the market analysis and acknowledged that error.  He said it came back recently with the same error.  He said it claimed that it did not, but in fact the error was still there.  He said they had failed to recognize the effect of inflation on the retail sales level that caused them to grossly exaggerate the amount of increase in retail sales. 

McClure said from 1990–2005, the annual growth in retail spending came out to an annualized rate of 1.6% per year.  The growth in retail space in 1990–2005 was 4.1% per year.  That meant the amount of retail space had grown at 2½ times the rate of growth of retail spending which was a recipe for a Topeka-like situation and having an extremely overbuilt community which was what Lawrence had now.  He said Lawrence could not absorb the new space at this time.  If, in fact, they built this space they would not be absorbing any new demand.  He said there was no latent demand out there.  He said building a Wal-Mart did not produce more people, more income, or made people change their spending habits, it simply said the finite amount of retail spending out there would now be spread even more thinly.  He said what that meant in very direct terms was, when they open Wal-Mart, a comparable amount of space would go vacant elsewhere in the community, causing deterioration and causing blight in this community.  He said communities throughout the nation had learned to monitor their retail market and with that they could better achieve their planning goals.  He said Lawrence was now dangerously overbuilt and approving those rezonings and this development plan would only further that problem.

Gwen Klingenberg, Lawrence, said she would like to take the time to correct some mistakes.  She said the TransSystems letter indicated the following: “The point is that if delays are high for traffic turning left out of the site at a particular drive, the driver may use another exit or turn right and follow that route.”  She said there was so much traffic on 6^th Street that the Wal-Mart traffic was heading north to nowhere because the town was south and east of this corner.  She said they were looking at an extremely large traffic generating business.  She produced a draft document from the Department of Transportation regarding the kinds of numbers they were looking at and the numbers used for trip generation for Wal-Mart was not accurate.  She asked if they would be looking at 150,000 cars a day, traveling across the front of the high school.  She said sooner or later that traffic would need to come down 6^th Street to get across 6^th Street and asked if they would travel through another neighborhood to go down to Monterey Way. 

The CORSIM, which was a KDOT study of the 6^th Street corridor, had several points, but she only read the top five. 

1. Traffic volumes along city streets within the corridor would significantly increase.  This would occur as motorists seek alternative routes to avoid congestion on US 40. 

2. People waiting to shop at existing stores located at US 40 and Wakarusa Drive will experience difficulty entering and exiting the parking areas for these businesses.  Access to and from the proposed commercial development along US 40 likely would be even more difficult. 

3. There were three schools within the corridors; students walking or biking to and from Free State, Langston Hughes, Quail Run Elementary, would likely experience safety issues as development occurred during the high traffic volumes in the corridor. 

4. We believe the network would be even more congested over time as background traffic continued to grow. 

5. Scenario 1:      A build out of everything that every person who was going to build on property along 6^th Street had told KDOT they were wanting

Scenario 2: This reduced the amount of retail to close to what was permitted in the corridor based on adopted land use plans. 

She said this approach was agreed to by the City, yet the City had agreed to every commercial development planned along 6^th Street.  She said Wal-Mart, as they had seen, was a very big traffic producer and was a regional type business.  Its traffic producing numbers were inappropriate in a community commercial center.  As traffic had been the concern of the neighborhood surrounding this corner, the TIS only confirmed that traffic from Wal-Mart development was excessive and they were well aware of it.

She said she would spare them some time because the applicant had agreed this plan was not significantly different to go back to the Planning Commission.  However, in looking at the preliminary plan documents, what they were talking about were legal dimensions, topography, streets, width, grade, but the letter that was sent out referred to daylight harvesting, energy, management, T8 fluorescent lights, low mercury which were all things that had nothing to do with the preliminary plan.

The staff report stated: “It was important to note that the subject application was submitted prior to the July 25 adoptions of guidelines; therefore, the applicant was not required to comply with all of the standards.”  The legal agreement stated: “The parties agree the project to be defined within the application shall incorporate enhanced design and construction standards at a level such that the physical appearance and layout of the site and the project will be of high quality and in keeping with the highest levels of aesthetics and design development by Wal-Mart in other locations, and in keeping with and consistent with the design standards of the City.”

She said they were looking for a sense of place, designing a pedestrian scale, creating visual interest on site plan, minimize the development’s impact on adjacent development with properly sited buildings, ensure the site circulation promoted contiguous, efficient and safe pedestrian and vehicle circulation, ensure that parking area provided safe and efficient access to buildings, and buildings do not dominate the overall site.  She said streetscapes and neighborhood transitions were usually heavily landscaped buffered areas.  Some of the unintended results of this included excessive land consumption, a lack of pedestrian and vehicle accessibility.  Accordingly, the following design standards and guidelines were established to ensure that new commercial developments were woven into the physical fabric of the community and surrounding neighborhoods by recommending that building placement and orientation provided compatible transitioning techniques to minimize adverse impact such as noise, odor, light and glare. 

The standards and guidelines also included the concept that streetscapes were the community’s most visible public space.  Streets played a pivotal role in determining both residents’ and visitors’ experiences to help to define the character of community.  The standards and guidelines recommended that buildings within new retail development, especially outlying and pad site buildings, be pulled forward to define the edges of public streets and internal private drives.  

The letter that came from Chris Clark, Landscaper for Wal-mart, stated focal points and key entries would be heavily landscaped to create a special area as one entered the project.  However, the Community Design Manual under Neighborhood Compatibility stated the combination of architectural transition, green open space transitions, and open compatibly standards should work to reduce the need for more intensive landscaping and screening transitions, but yet they were very proud of all of their landscaping.  Neighborhood connectivity and pedestrian connections included bicycle access into the commercial development. Furthermore, parking areas that were arranged around to the rear end side, which they had done a little of, large buildings provided safe, convenient, efficient access, reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflicts, and parking areas should be accessed by rear and/or side. She said under pedestrian access it stated to create shopping areas that were interesting to the development’s design instead of creating stand alone detached sites.  It was the intent of the standard guidelines to ensure that new commercial developments were designed for pedestrians.  She said there was a whole section on pedestrian circulation.  It also stated that a single large dominant building mass shall be avoided, and under their architectural details, reduce mass aesthetic effects of a large building façade.

She showed the development plan from 2002 and 2003 and asked the City Commission to note the similarity to the plan the applicant presented this evening.  She said Wal-Mart should take the lead in creating a design that followed the design standards and create walk ability and access ability as it was stipulated in the design standards.  Bauer Farms had created a more closely acceptable design based on the design standards and Wal-Mart should, as stated in the standard, more closely follow suit to this development being a neighbor.  Wal-Mart had a history of working within design standards elsewhere. 

She said finally as they could note, the plan that was presented did not follow their design standards and did not keep with the highest level of aesthetics and design developed by Wal-Mart in other locations.  She said this preliminary plan should be denied based on the failure to comply with the abeyance on design standards, their own designs in other locations and traffic concerns.  

Klingenberg also requested the grocery store be removed as an approved use.  She said they should not send it back to the Planning Commission because all they will get was what they saw.  She said they should deny this plan.  She said if they wanted to follow the City’s standards as the City Commission asked them to, and they agreed to do, they had a chance to take this bare piece of property and actually create something wonderful.

Lisa Day, Lawrence, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning.  She said the rezoning of this area to accommodate a second Wal-Mart in Lawrence would cause problems.  The West Lawrence Neighborhood members had voiced fear of traffic cutting through their neighborhoods and what about the high school.  She said her daughter was no longer a student at Free State, she was a student at KU now, but she still rode her bike to Free State to visit friends.  Kids ride their bikes fast and do not think about the traffic.  She said that would be the first thing that would happen was someone would be racing to get to Wal-Mart to get one more item that they did not need, and end up hitting a kid.  She said she had stated to this body in a prior meeting the concern of the heavy traffic and all it would take was that one time for a student to leave Free State. 

She said putting in another Wal-Mart would only divide up sales of what the current store was generating and the additional Wal-Mart was not needed.  Anyone in that area could simply jump on the by-pass and be at 33^rd and Iowa in minutes.  She said the first Wal-Mart had already been enlarged and many of them did not want another Wal-Mart in town. 

There was an organization in Lawrence that was trying to get some ridiculous items put on their voting ballot that have no merit or value such as should they be in Iraq.  She said she felt putting a new Wal-Mart with city wide vote on the ballot would be beneficial.  She said she believed they would see a resounding no from the citizens of this city to another Wal-Mart. 

She said she understood that if a plan only received three votes the plan would go back to the Planning Commission, and then back to the City Commission and it could pass with only three votes.  She said with all due respect, she did not believe a simply majority of three people should be allowed to approve such a plan and implement it when it had such a tremendous affect on the entire citizenship of the city. 

She said Mayor Amyx had previously stated in the Lawrence Journal World yesterday that this issue was about arrangement of buildings and those sort of items.  She said they should scrap those arrangements.  She said Angie Stoner, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman stated the retailer complied with the requirements and stated, “We worked very close with the City staff on this.”  She said none of this guaranteed that anyone could put up a store in their town.  She respectfully requested this body listen to the citizens of Lawrence, unanimously reject the plan, and not agree to the rezoning of the area for Wal-Mart.

Hubbard Collingsworth asked if someone could make a clarification about what they meant by intermodel transportation.  He asked if 18 wheelers would enter and exit through the same entrance as automobile traffic.  He said that was a concern because he spent 20 years in the transportation industry and would like to know what kind of truck traffic there was going to be and which way they were planning on coming into the city.  He asked if traffic was going to be coming off the Turnpike at Lecompton or would traffic come off from the east side, coming down Highway 40.

He asked if the shrubbery along one area would be evergreen trees or native trees other than those trees they were going to save.  He said he understood Wal-Mart’s concern about visibility at the truck loading dock and he commended them for that.  He said he would like the answers from the Wal-Mart representatives regarding the intermodel transportation and the accessibility of the parking lot.

Susan Chi, Lawrence, said she was concerned about the traffic.  She said in the traffic impact study report, she noticed the traffic counts were done between June 23^rd and June 28^th of 2006 which was after Free State High School let out for the summer, after all the track meets, the swimming meets, band concerts, plays, etc.  She said also Free State High School had the open lunch period where the high school kids were driving in and out.  She said it was not shown on the map and it probably should be. 

She said she also noticed on the traffic impact study the garden center square footage was not included in estimating the generation of traffic and she thought it should be included. 

She said the retention pond being called green space was a little bit of a misnomer and she was confused about the second action being requested talking about the Planning Commission recommending denial of the original plan that was presented.  She said they heard about new things and changes that had been made since then.  She said she did not know about other people, but she felt very confused as if they were asking the City Commission not to deny it, but to base part of that decision on the new information that was not presented.  She said she did not understand why it was even being talked about at the meeting when that was not the question they were being asked to act on. 

Allard Jongman, Lawrence, said he wanted to reiterate the concern that had been voiced by previous speakers about the impact of traffic that such a project might bring about.  He said he thought anytime they would consider a project of that magnitude, traffic and safety was a major concern, but particularly in this location being so close to a high school.  He said he thought the fact that it was a high school was particularly significant.  He said it was not a grade school or junior high school, it was a high school that served well over 1,000 kids and those kids were between the ages of 15 and 18.  That meant those kids would get their first driving experience alone driving to and from school.  He said they were very inexperienced drivers and thought that was an important fact.  He said if they would have told him ahead of time thinking about a project somewhere in Lawrence and it would probably significantly increase the flow of traffic by a number of 10, 100, or whatever it may be, not only that, but they were going to put it right next to an area where most of their young drivers get their first driving experience, he would say they have got to be kidding.  He said it might be a nicely developed Wal-Mart, but he did not think this was the right location.

Alan Cowles, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said traffic was their biggest issue.  He said he wanted to remind everyone that about 40,000 people a day experience the frustrations of 23^rd Street around Louisiana and Iowa.  The traffic study completed about a year ago predicted there would be 35 minute traffic transits between Folks and K-10 and nothing could be done. 

He said the second issue was grocery sales.  He said he knew their Commissioners were generally reluctant to try to tell stores exactly what to sell, which made sense in general, but when there was an out of balance sort of situation, he thought it was reasonable for their Commissioners to put restrictions on things.  He said most of the grocery stores in Lawrence were west of Massachusetts and there was a particular concentration of grocery stores on 6^th Street.  The big grocery bag in Lawrence was leaning way to the northwest and he thought it was very appropriate to try to do something about this by restricting grocery sales at Wal-Mart.  He said Dillon’s had long had a 60,000 square foot expansion option, which they could have exercised if it thought they could sell more groceries in this area.  He thought the reason why they did not expand was simply because they felt the current size was sufficient for the area.  He said if they would put another big grocery space on the opposite corner, they were going to have an empty shell on the southeast corner. 

He said he would like to recommend an expansion restriction.  He said any time they put something in place that was going to be there for 50 or 75 years, he thought they would want to be very careful about it and future expansion was one of their big concerns.  He said he would recommend trying to get a commitment out of Wal-Mart that they were not going to expand into those other areas.  He said Thompson and Newsome had assured him they had not had discussions about expansion, which was fine, but this commitment he thought really ought to come from the future occupant, Wal-Mart.  He said he was not talking about a commitment from Thompson and Newsome, but a commitment from Wal-Mart that they were not going to expand.  He said they have an entity that in one day makes enough profit to probably buy everything within a quarter mile of that intersection with one day’s profit.  He said he thought regardless of how it was zoned at the moment, regardless of how it was built up, he still had some concerns about expansion when dealing with an entity which had so much money at its disposal and had a reputation, in his personal opinion, of bullying small communities into doing what they wanted to do.  He said he would suggest a restriction on future expansion even though the zoning was different and might soon have other owners.

Mayor Amyx asked if Cowles was suggesting the City Commission not deny the plan, but only place restrictions on this property.   

Cowles said there were so many options that he thought the City Commission had to think hard about the issue and come up with the best answer for the community.  He said he would leave that decision to the Commission, and he was not trying to be evasive.  He said he really thought this Commission had a marvelous reputation for trying to think about those problems and trying to come up with something that was good for the community and he trusted the Commission to do that.

Paula Pepin asked if there had been any consideration of the impact of traffic on Wakarusa.  She asked if traffic studies had been done to address Wakarusa and was there a definite plan to put a stop light at Wakarusa and Harvard, which was the main entrance to two neighborhoods and as they mentioned, much of the traffic would come from the south and she thought a lot of traffic would increase on Wakarusa, which was an area where kids bike and people walk.  She asked how much thought they put into Wakarusa.  She said they did want to make their community pedestrian friendly.  She said she already felt like if they were walking and running and getting across to the pool, her kids, until they are much older, were not going to be allowed to go up there if this was built because she was concerned about traffic.  She said she would hate to feel like she could not let them go past Wakarusa. 

Greg DeVilbiss, Bristol Group, property owner of the shopping center directly to the south of proposed Wal-mart, said as a property owner across the street with what they considered one of the finest centers in the city, they had great concern about what was going to happen across the street from them.  He said he heard a lot of different comments from various neighbors during this time period that Wal-Mart had been working through issues.  He said he was at a Chamber of Commerce meeting and sat at a table with some commercial realtors, and they told him that if it was a home improvement store, they would be fine, but they did not want that particular retailer out there.  He said after listening to Klingenberg talk about the design guidelines, how happy he was that Wal-Mart and the City Staff worked together to not only meet those guidelines in the spirit of them, but exceeded them.  He said as a property owner across the street, his family, and the tenants that work with them in their center, were very excited about the look of this particular development and how it complimented their center.  He said the alternative to that from this meeting was the Home Depot that was built on 31^st Street, which this body approved, and he could tell them that if they built that particular type of building across the street, he would be stunned and be very disappointed.  He said he was very pleased to endorse Wal-mart and how they worked so hard to enhance the commercial part of that area. 

He said a number of their tenants along with themselves were making substantial investments in the community with a variety of office and retail projects.  He said when Horizon 2020 was in its draft form and the Northwest Area Plan was in force, his reading of that plan showed that there was going to be a fair amount of commercial development at that site and it had been designed long before most of the residential neighborhoods in that area were put in place.  If people really did not like living near commercial developments, then he suggested that they not build their homes and move in next to those commercial areas.  He said this area was, and has been, designed for commercial development long before any of it was there or before the McDonald’s was probably even there.  He said it was long before they ever thought of building it.  He said it had been known for many years this area was going to be commercial.  He said he moved into his house in an established neighborhood, so he knew who his neighbors were going to be and what was going to happen there. 

He said in terms of traffic, he said his daughter attended Lawrence High and was so glad that the West Lawrence Association was so concerned about the students and traffic because now they could start to move Lawrence High out to the country where there was a nice, safe alternative to the Louisiana and 23^rd Street intersection.  He said it was a very dangerous situation, especially with Cordley and the former Centennial School, it was a real shame.  He said his point of view was that his daughter was 16, a licensed driver, and he felt like he had worked with her long and hard enough that she was a safe, competent driver, otherwise he would not put her on the streets.  He said he knew for a fact that after a Lawrence High football game over at Haskell, she was leaving there with lots of traffic and navigating to their home or wherever she was going perfectly safely.  He said he had a lot of confidence in the youth and their ability to navigate cars.  He said if they were not being safe, they should not be on the road. 

He said he was very pleased with the look, the feel of the Wal-Mart Store, the fact that they were using spade dug trees like they used across the street, and would be very pleased to have them as a neighbor.  He said in 2002 all his tenants signed a petition endorsing a Wal-Mart across the street because they realized the traffic that everyone seemed to be afraid of, which was not going to be from his point of view not much traffic, was going to be helpful in their success.  He said when they looked at those older plans that called for an anchor at that intersection and after 5, 6, 7 years there was still not an anchor there, it was putting a hurt on the entrepreneurial, primarily family owned businesses that could use a traffic driver.  He said it would help them out a lot.

Sally Cloar, West Lawrence, said apparently traffic with teenagers was considered safe, but it was not because two of her three children had accidents because they did not have the experience to avoid those accidents.  She said someday they would all be safe drivers she was sure. 

She said she thought the kind of shopping area the neighbors would like to see was a smaller shopping area.  She said they could have the same retail space and have many stores instead of one huge one that told its suppliers what they could charge for a product.  She suggested zoning for many small stores. 

Mayor Amyx asked if someone could respond to Collingsworth’s questions. 

Frankenberg said he could respond to the truck traffic concern.  He said he could predict the majority of the Wal-mart controlled trucking fleet was going to come off the trafficway and off of I-70 or south, if necessary, coming from the other store.  He said they did have vendor trucks they did not control that might get into a different situation.  He said if any truck tried to negotiate the roundabout, they might do that once, but he did not think they would not do that again and they would come on and off Congressional.  He said they also felt this would be their main entrance to the site.  Even people coming from the east would quickly learn that it was quicker to make a right turn into that entrance.  He said a large percentage of their exiting traffic would exit where there was less traffic when Free State was letting out of school. 

He said also the traffic counts for the traffic study were reconfirmed in June of this year.  He said the Bauer Farms traffic study was done during school hours and there were studies done previously when they did their first submittal during school hours also.  He said the professionals who did the study and the staff professionals who reviewed it, required that all the school traffic be taken into account. 

He said one thing to note was that their peak hour for any commercial development tended to be during the weekday in the evenings between 4:00 and 6:00.  He said theirs was a little earlier because of the amount of college students and college professors and jobs that might get out before 3:00 or 4:00, so between 4:00 and 6:00 would be a weekday hour.  He said their weekend hours would run between 11:00 and 1:00 all over the country.  In retirement communities and where the general age was older, that peak Saturday hour crept a little earlier and in communities with colleges and so forth, it crept a little later.  The peak hour for this development would be much different than the peak hour of Free State High School, therefore there would not be the conflicts that people were worried about and traffic professionals had studied that to address that issue. 

He said regarding intermodal transportation, there was a bike path that existed and would be maintained.  He said the intersection had been previously designed and the signal that would be installed would consider that bike path and allow it to cross.  He said there was a 10 foot bike path currently on the south side of 6^th Street and a 10 foot bike path along Wakarusa.  He said the existing 5 foot sidewalk that was constructed would be widened to a 10 foot bike path.

Commissioner Schauner asked how the area east of the featured building was zoned.

Frankenberg said that area was currently zoned POD.  He said the application right now covered the green area and did not concern the area east of the featured building.  He said the application was coming up before the Planning Commission at the next meeting concerned only a lot currently zoned residential and they would request that area be rezoned to open space, which had no permitted uses on it other than that open area.  He said the comment was made the detention was not open green area.  He said they would be using FCA, who was their natural resource planner, to plan it so that they did have a wet area at all times for the use of ducks and other habitat enhancements and they would be planting plants and trees in that detention basin.  He said it would function in conjunction with nature to help treat the stormwater that ran off. 

Thompson said to follow up on the traffic issue, Wal-Mart agreed to pay for 2/3 of the cost of the light that was going in at Congressional and Sixth,.  He said he also wanted to comment on a couple of the photographs of other stores they were shown.  He said those stores would not comply with Lawrence’s code.  He said the requirement of 30% native materials, those stores would not comply, but the store they were proposing did comply as staff stated.

He said with regard to groceries, he thought that issue had been on the table all along and was certainly not a surprise.  He said he did have a little bit of a problem calling the nation’s largest grocery chain, Kroger, a neighborhood grocery store and Kroger being the owner of Dillon’s. 

He said in terms of the traffic counts, he wanted to note that the traffic impact study indicated that when this was built out, the Wal-Mart traffic was 8% of the traffic at the intersection of 6^th and Wakarusa. 

Commissioner Schauner asked about the daily traffic count for the Wal-Mart feature building, the actual trip generated number.

Frankenberg said he did not have that number off the top of his head.  He said it was based on the ITE manuals, which was developed and used in studying Wal-Mart stores and Wal-Mart parking lots.  He said it was what the professionals used and staff required in evaluating the parking.  He said with regard to traffic it was a reduction.  As a part of this plan came in, there was less commercial and residential traffic, which was going to make the traffic less than what was approved.  He said he did not have the exact numbers on the tip of his tongue.

Commissioner Schauner said they had heard the number 115 per thousand square foot of free standing store and asked if that was a number that would seem consistent with Frankenberg’s experience.

Frankenberg said it was not.  He said numbers they would typically see when they dealt with the 200,000 square foot stores, was in the neighborhood of 1,000 trips per hour, which was entering and exiting combined.  He said because of the size of this proposed store, he said he would expect this number to be 50-60% of that or 400 – 600 on peak hour.  He said that was not the average hour, but what they designed for the peak hour because that was when most of the traffic was in that area and that was when the levels of service were calculated.  He said a daily traffic of 115,000 would be way out.  He said he thought they would be looking at maybe 30,000 – 40,000 cars a day or maybe 50,000.  He said daily traffic numbers typically were not used by the professionals to evaluate it because at midnight and even certain times after the peak hour, they did not have as much meaning as they designed the geometrics of the intersection. 

Mayor Amyx asked what the trip generation was at the South Iowa store before it was remodeled.

Frankenberg said they would anticipate that after the expansion they were right at the 200,000 square foot level and they would be seeing somewhere around 1,000 trips per hour entering and exiting.  He said before the expansion they were somewhere around 80,000 square feet.  He said he would expect it to be 400 – 600 in range of trips per hour.  He said when they double the size the trips were not necessarily doubled.  He said a lot of those people were already shopping at the Wal-Mart and they would be shopping at the grocery section.  He said those were the numbers he would expect, somewhere between 400 – 600 before and somewhere around 1,000 after.  He said typically a Saturday peak hour would be the highest peak they would design for.

Thompson said Chi raised the question of exactly what was being asked to happen.  He said he wanted to clarify that there were a number of conditions placed on the plan or recommended for placement on the plan by staff, and all of those conditions had been resolved and removed.  He said the plan before the Commission did not contain a laundry list of conditions.  He said he thought the traffic count issue had been resolved.  The school hour was not the peak hour for this intersection because the traffic then was less than the during the peak hour. 

Commissioner Schauner said in looking at the draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on August 30^th, 2006, concerning the development plan, the motion was, “Vote on original motion by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Lawson, to recommend approval of the plan, subject to conditions as amended to include all conditions except 4R and 4U.  Motion failed, 5 – 5.”   He asked what difference it made if those conditions had been satisfied since the Planning Commission’s vote of 5 – 5 was to deny that plan and the development, even with those conditions. 

Thompson said the difference it made was there were multiple ways to satisfy the conditions.  He said the Planning Commission had not seen the manner in which those issues were addressed and resolved.  He said while there may be a condition, for simplicity sake say more green space, they had not seen how they might add more green space or where it was going to be.  The specific manner that some of the conditions had been addressed had not been viewed by the Planning Commission and they would like to have a favorable recommendation come before the City Commission from the Planning Commission.  It was obviously very close last time. He said they thought after the Planning Commission saw how they addressed the issues that were discussed, and some of that was done because they heard what they were saying, they thought they would get another vote or two and have a favorable recommendation.  He said that was why they were asking the City Commission to send it back.

Commissioner Schauner said he thought he heard him say in his opening remarks that the development plan before the City Commission was substantially the same plan as denied by the Planning Commission.

Thompson said it was substantially the same layout, he said there were many small changes throughout the plan.  He said the discussion early on and over the past few days had to do with the primary location of the feature building and in that regard, there was no difference between the plan the Planning Commission looked at and the plan the City Commission was looking at.

Mayor Amyx asked Soules to address the question about traffic on Wakarusa south of 6^th Street.

Soules said staff had taken a look at the Wakarusa Drive corridor from 6^th to 23^rd Streets and would bring those results to the City Commission before the end of the year.  He said the intersection at Harvard and Wakarusa and Inverness and Wakarusa did meet warrants for signalization.  He said they were significant improvements; geometric improvements and providing a left turn lane.  He said they did not anticipate at this point Wakarusa being widened anymore than at those intersections to provide for those turn lanes.  He said they had not looked at a center turn lane all the way through and did not think that traffic volumes were going to be that great. 

Commissioner Schauner asked, as a person who drove fairly regularly through that intersection at 6^th and Wakarusa, if staff reviewed the crossing traffic that went from the Westgate shopping area to the area where DiVilbiss’ development was located.

Soules said no but he recognized that was a tough area to cross.

Commissioner Schauner said the reason he asked was because he thought they had some discussions with the developer of the east side of that intersection to provide access from all directions.  He said in fact, they had been involved in some litigation around that issue.  He said if in fact crossing traffic there was increased by 200, 300, or 400 more cars a day, the north south traffic on Wakarusa, that was several more hundred cars a day and they had some limited ability to restrict it by putting a median further south preventing that cross traffic, he asked what suggestions they would have about how to resolve that issue.

Soules said staff would need to take a look at that area.

Vice Mayor Hack asked if the coordination of those lights would ease some of that traffic.

Soules said it could potentially, yes.

Commissioner Schauner said he was more than a little concerned about their legal ability to restrict the access.

David Corliss, City Manager, asked if Commissioner Schauner was asking whether or not they had the legal ability to put a median up and down Wakarusa so there were fewer left turns.

Commissioner Schauner said he knew he had to feel braver than normal to cross Wakarusa. 

Commissioner Rundle said there were comments from Planning Commissioner Haase regarding the retail impact study that Horizon 2020 provided authority for the Planning Commission to add requirements to the retail impact study and asked if that information was accurate.  He said it seemed like something that was a major part of this decision would not be simply provided to staff for comment and review, but it would be part of a public record for this project.

Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said what Planning Commissioner Haase was referring to was policy 3.11 in Horizon 2020.  Sub point 3 said the study should analyze the commercial proposal and provide at least the following information.  It listed A –E and F and any other additional information required by the Planning Commission.  She said that was Planning Commissioner Haase’s reference.

Commissioner Rundle asked if Corliss could comment on the context he was asking it in.

Corliss said he was not as familiar as to some of their practices regarding that issue.  He said clearly any information that staff received from an applicant was something the Planning Commission should have the opportunity to review.  He said one of the concerns was at what point was the information very technical and not something they wanted to burden the Planning Commission with as far as downstream sewer analysis and those kinds of things where essentially what the Planning Commission and City Commission were trusting was actual conclusions and summaries and those kinds of things.  He said clearly the Planning Commission should be receiving a narrative discussion from any of those studies.  He said if that was not happening, then staff wanted to make sure they responded to that concern.

Commissioner Rundle said he understood there were no arguments made and no Planning Commissioner suggested that there was anything inaccurate in the materials that were presented in the memo regarding Planning Commissioner Haase’s comments and asked if that information was accurate.

Stogsdill said there were concerns expressed that there were editorial comments in those statements.  Planning Commissioner Finkeldei specifically identified two out of the six and said in his opinion those were editorial comments, not the actual accounts of what had been discussed.  The vote was 6-4 in terms of appending that to the minutes and it was a concern that by having it in the official minutes, it was an acknowledgement from the entire Planning Commission that it was an accurate assessment of all of the proceedings.  She said that was why the motion was to append it and specifically identify it as one Planning Commissioner’s observations.

Commissioner Hack said the draft minutes were approved at the Planning Commission last night.  The minutes stated, “The Planning Commission discussed the draft Planning Commission minutes. Several Commissioners provided comments and revisions, but Commissioner Haase provided comment related to the six areas of concern that he did not believe were adequately represented in the draft minutes.  The Planning Commission, as a whole, discussed the comments and voted 6-4 to append Commissioner Haase’s e-mail in communication of the August minutes in which he outlined six areas of concern that he had.  She said it might be helpful for the applicant to see those comments.

Stogsdill said that was her fault because she intended to forward it, but the day got away from her.

Commissioner Schauner asked if a condition of the zoning was that the plan had to be approved.

Stogsdill said yes.  She said there would not be a first and second reading of a rezoning ordinance until after an approved plan, so it would not be published until that condition was met.

Commissioner Schauner said there was no reason the City Commission would need to approve the rezoning until such time and unless the Commission had an interest in approving the plan itself.  He said they were essentially locked together by virtue of the language in one of the conditions on the rezoning.

Stogsdill said they were tied together but it was not at all uncommon for the City Commission to approve a zoning contingent upon a plan.  She said they did that further to the west at both of the corners of 6^th and K-10.  It had been a fairly common practice that those rezonings had been approved contingent on a plan and not always at the same time.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Stogsdill would describe it as a best practice.

Stogsdill said she did not see the harm in it because the condition was there and believed that from staff’s perspective it was much more difficult to evaluate a rezoning request when they did not have the plan in place.  She said in terms of the timing of approvals, it was not all done until it was all done.

Mayor Amyx said if a zoning was approved subject to the condition of a final development plan being recorded at the Register of Deeds office, in the event that an agreement did not happen on the development plan, what happened to that zoning.

Stogsdill said the zoning would expire if there was no action in a certain amount of time.  She said the code said 12 months typically.  The original PCD zoning approval many years ago for a campus development, never came to fruition if there was never a plan approved.  It happened multiple times on multiple pieces of property where things changed and were not completed.

Commissioner Highberger asked Pool if she had the information about his earlier parking question. 

Pool said on the actual Wal-Mart site, 429 spaces were required and 493 were provided.  She said the pad site was included, 581 were required and 697 were provided, which were 116 extra. 

Commissioner Highberger asked if Pool knew the approximate distance from 6^th Street to the southern most entrance on the right and to the main entrance on the left from 6^th Street to the right out exit.

Pool said it met the distance standards of the intersection.  She said she would need to scale it out with a ruler.

Stogsdill said the one on Congressional should be 350 feet back because it was lined up with the property on the west side of Congressional, and that was the KDOT restriction.

Commissioner Highberger asked if the one on the right was about 400 feet.

Stogsdill said probably so and she believed that was lined up with the Bauer Farm entrance.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the current zoning of the vacant ground of the upper right quadrant of the property being considered and if it was a POD, Planned Office Development.

Stogsdill said with the new zoning district, it was planned as Urban Reserve because it was still zoned agricultural.  She said it was a planned office district that was approved subject to approval of a preliminary development plan.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the density.

Stogsdill said she believed it was a POD-1.  She said if it was a POD-1, it was just an office district without residential.  A POD-2 had up to 15 dwelling units per acre on the residential site.  She said she believed the POD-1 was strictly an office development.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the last activity of that. 

Stogsdill said they had conversations back and forth over the course of the last year about that property and have not yet seen a submittal.

Mayor Amyx said if there was going to be an expansion of this property he asked how this property would be protected from being the next expansion of that project.

Corliss said they talked generally about that.  Just as a principle in municipal law it was very difficult to bind future governing bodies in a way that was absolute so that a future governing body could not change whatever rule or instrument that would be placed on a piece of property.  He said that was the nature of zoning and what they were considering this evening which was changing a zoning that a past governing body enacted on a piece of property.  He said one of the things they talked about was whether or not there would be other physical impediments that would make it more challenging for expansion.  He said for example, if the north/south driveway was public right-of-way, or even a portion of it was dedicated to public right-of-way, it would require a future governing body to agree to vacate that public right-of-way.  He said that was going to be an action of a governing body that would be similar to a rezoning or that would have to be approved for the expansion of the facility or a development plan that would be approved in the expansion of the facility.  He said he talked generally about whether or not there would be some type of conservation easement that might be owned by the city and maybe owned by a third party that would require the acquiescence of the city and that third party in order to allow for an expansion.  He said it was pretty difficult to prohibit something in the future where a future governing body and a future property owner want to do something.  He said that had been the extent of his discussions.  He said he thought there was concern about precedent that if this was done, every controversial land use would have a similar requirement.  He said he thought this project was unique enough that maybe they could point to that as the reason why it was not precedent.  He said he thought it was a struggle to come up with something that was an absolute iron clad lock box that would guarantee that a future governing body and a future property owner would not agree for a larger facility.  He said that was the nature of land use decisions and municipal law.  He said they could put it in the minutes and put it on the paper and have a number of different instruments, but it was not something that future parties have to do.

Mayor Amyx said this issue was back to the original question about whether or not this item needed to go back before the Planning Commission.  He said he thought there were a number of issues that were raised.

Commissioner Rundle said it was his understanding planned developments, in theory, allow the Commission to be more flexible with requirements to respond to opportunities or obstacles, conserving natural features and those types of things.  He asked in that case, each planned development could, in theory, be completely unique in terms of the various development criteria or requirements.

Stogsdill said yes, many planned developments were unique.  For example, the Walgreen’s developments PCD’s were restricted to one use, a drug store use.  Payless Cashways had originally had been a single use PCD and that had typically been the specific distinction in the history of how they have used them in terms of restricting uses.  She said they have over time found that if they have too many restaurants co-locating, they might exceed the 100 – 200 parking space ratio and so the pad sites in front of Home Depot and Best Buy had a specific restriction that if they were restaurant uses, they had to comply with a higher parking requirement than the general PCD.

Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to establish that thought because that was one of the first things he had in his comments when they got to that point.

Mayor Amyx said he thought they were at the point of deciding whether or not this item was to go back to the Planning Commission.  He said this item had been brought to the Commission because of the abeyance agreement that both sides agreed to a number of different issues, but probably the most important was that both sides worked to live within the wording of the agreement. 

He said it came back to the question of whether this plan was the plan the Planning Commission reviewed.  He said he thought there had been some changes in the plan and obviously with the question of expansion, and the storm water detention facility on the northwest corner he thought was a part of this plan.  He said he thought it probably addressed some of the expansion questions.  He thought what they were looking at was process.  The process should continue for at least one more meeting and he thought there was a number of great comments and questions. 

He said some of their questions concerned traffic.  The traffic generated for this site had to come from the south to support this retail venture.  He said he would like information on south Iowa Street because he was under the impression that when 6^th Street was improved that with the application the City Commission looked at the time of the redevelopment and annexation of 6^th Street, that 6^th Street was a roadway that could carry traffic that had approximately 2.3 million square feet of commercial that was to be considered at the time.  He said now they were down to less than a million square feet of commercial in the same corridor study.  He said he would like information about how those traffic counts on 2.3 million square feet of commercial retail on South Iowa because the traffic that was on that end of town had to cross 23^rd to the south. 

He said there were probably different service levels of traffic on every street in town depending on what was adjacent to it.  He said one of the biggest areas that failed was 9^th and Massachusetts, especially on a busy day.   

He said the expandability of the building needed to be addressed.  The Wakarusa Drive improvements needed to be looked at in more detail, especially to the south side of 6^th Street.  He said he thought they had created a situation in trying to turn across those lanes which would be tough.  Some business people would probably feel threatened by any island along that area, but their job was public safety.  They would probably meet with a similar resistance in front of the People’s Bank and Dillon’s area. 

He said there were several references in the Planning Commission minutes concerning a grocery store.  He said he personally did not want to ask the Planning Commission to restrict any use.  He said he thought this issue should go back to the Planning Commission and have those items especially considered. 

Commissioner Rundle said if he was not mistaken, they were the third City Commission to review some version of this proposal.  He said it might have been before the current City Commission up through the course of up to four years.  He said he thought everyone would be well served to make a decision.  He said they agreed to consider this issue under the abeyance agreement and look at it freshly, under other parameters than they looked at it in the past to see if it worked for this community to serve the best interest of the City.  He said he did not believe it did. 

He said he was going to comment on the nature of the planned development.  While it had been a practice, not necessarily a common practice, but almost the norm to approve the zoning conditions on approval of a development plan, it had been a topic of discussion off and on for many years.  He said he complained about it on numerous occasions and thought there was general agreement among the majority of the Planning Commission, possibly the League of Women Voters, and certainly neighborhood groups that they needed to see both of those items at the same time.  He said in this instance the zoning was barely passed and the plan failed by a tie vote.  He said it was important to have those items together and because they could or should be unique and should be responding to special conditions, the whole theory turned on its head if the development plan and zoning were separated.  He said when each of those items could be unique and each of them should be responding to particular issues, those items should come together.  He said this item was only halfway there because one item passed and the other item did not. 

The abeyance agreement set out some general parameters, but it was his understanding they were going to see something that reflected the higher requirements that Wal-Mart had faced in other communities.  He said there was question among their Planning Commissioners whether or not it met the City’s development standards, but he certainly did not think it was reflective of the higher quality developments that were even shown during some of those sessions when they were considering this issue.  

He said he thought the specific reasons for denial were the major traffic considerations.  The retail impact analysis had not been seen and had not been accepted because there were major flaws that still existed.  He said design standards were another key issue.  Horizon 2020 defines this area as a CC200 and was approaching almost twice the square footage that would be allowed.  He said while that was a decision that had already been made, they needed to use special care in making the decisions about something on that magnitude for that particular intersection.    

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously. 

Commissioner Highberger said he was disappointed when he first saw the plan that came from Wal-Mart.  He said they entered into a good faith discussion to find a way to settle this issue and it was a decision that was quite difficult to explain to a lot of his constituents.  He said when he saw the first part of this plan, he was really disappointed.  He thought the changes that were made since it went to the Planning Commission were an improvement, but he still did not think it met the spirit of their Commercial Design Guidelines.  He said he did not think it reached the highest standards for development that Wal-Mart could do. 

He said the most telling thing for him, as Klingenberg pointed out that violated their guidelines, was the berming in front.  He said he wanted something that would not be so bad to look that they did not have to put a 5–7 foot berm in front of it.  He said this plan did not do it.  He said it may be extremely difficult or maybe impossible to build a store of this size and meet the commercial guidelines.  He said there would be another chance to do it, but from his perspective it did not meet the terms of the settlement agreement he entered into.

He said in terms of traffic, he thought they needed to realize that if this plan was denied, and Wal-Mart went away, which he did not think was likely, this corner was still zoned, provided it was still upheld by the court, for 150,000 square feet of retail space including 80,000 square feet of big box.  He said the only way to fix that was down zone it again or build a better grid system.  He thought it was absolutely crucial and thought KDOT would even agree they needed to build a better grid system in this area or 6^th Street would reach another unacceptable level of service.  He realized that it was something that was out of the applicant’s control and part of it was driven by KDOT, part of it by the city’s access management guidelines, which he stated for the record again, needed some serious revision.  He said he thought they were standing in the way of building street connections they needed to build at that location, but it needed to be taken into account in any final plan.  He said he was not going to address any other issues other than to say, he did not think it met the spirit of the agreement that he entered into.   He said he would move to deny the plan and in addition he would move to table the rezonings. 

Vice Mayor Hack said traffic, placement of the buildings, design guidelines and expansion had been discussed.  She said she believed this intersection had been designed to accommodate the amount of square footage of retail space this area had been zoned for.  She said staff sent an e-mail about the south Iowa area that had twice as much retail space as this plan did with intersections that were designed exactly the same way as 6^th and Wakarusa. 

She said when talking about a failure of a road, it did not mean it was crumbled and was not drivable, but it meant someone might need to wait at peak times for one additional light.  She said she did not believe that drove people into neighborhoods.

She said this project was going to be located by the high school, but the school district was very aware when the high school property was purchased which was why the school district received a good deal on that purchase. 

She said because of the size of the largest of those buildings massing the front of the building on 6^th Street was not what they wanted to look for in terms of walkability or connectivity within the area.  She thought placing the building toward the back did a couple of things. First of all it addressed the walking areas.  She said there was a lot of green space and landscaping, but the bottom line was comparing apples and oranges when they were looking at what was happening in the northeast corner and the northwest corner.  She said she did not think they could compare what went on with the Bauer Farms area to what was going on with this area because those were two completely different setups. 

Concerning the design guidelines, she disagreed with the comments because as she looked at that building it was not a cookie cutter facility like they had seen on south Iowa before they had design guidelines.  At that point, they could not require a building to not look like every other building seen all over the country.  She said staff pointed out regarding design guidelines that it was a balance and required what they wanted and what the topography allowed.  She said it met the guidelines.  She said she looked at some of the things that were not natural, but the synthetic slate roofing, as pointed out, was what they had used in other places. 

The possible expansion was a concern that was expressed.  She said Mayor Amyx brought up that the area in the northwest was not to be considered as part of that plan, but it did have an impact because it allowed for the detention screening and of the truck traffic coming through.  She said it did not allow for expansion to the north, there was no expansion to the west, and could not have expansion to the south because they would be giving up parking spaces.  The only way was to the east and that was a concern and sending the plan back to the Planning Commission might allow opportunities to address that issue. 

The other point about massing the building up at the front was the truck traffic and mixing customer traffic with delivery traffic was not a good mix and that was a pattern they wanted to keep separated and it was another reason to keep it in the back.

She said sending this plan back to the Planning Commission was fair.  She did not think the Planning Commission saw the extent to which the conditions had been met and had not seen the change in the detention area so that to her was a difference.  She thought it was a fairer process to allow the Planning Commission to review what the City Commission had reviewed and make a decision based on those criteria.

She asked staff for a capital improvement timetable on Wakarusa for the coordinating of lights because coordinating those lights would be helpful to those folks in that area regardless of what happened at this intersection and asked staff to let the City Commission know where that sat on the back burner.

Commissioner Schauner said it was this issue in late 2002 that prompted him to get involved in local politics.  He said everybody has had this project in the upper part of their mind in one way or another for four years, going on five.  He said he had struggled with this issue and part of the struggle was when they, as a City Commission, decided that they would enter into an abeyance agreement and went back and looked at what they did agree to, it said that “Nothing contained in this abeyance agreement shall constitute a pre-approval of the zoning and plan approval application or a substitution for full procedural review in accordance with City standards, processes and procedures.”  He still believed that it was an opportunity for the parties to disengage the litigation, have Wal-Mart come forward with a plan that was going to be consistent with their best design efforts, go through the traffic analysis and the retail impact studies, and whatever else would be required as part of their ordinary planning process.  He said the problem was, in a way, this was not really about Wal-Mart, but on the other hand there was no one else out there like Wal-Mart.  He said Wal-Mart was a one of a kind operation.  He said it was the largest retailer in the world and it was not Mom and Pop selling shoes someplace.  He said it did not get any bigger in this economy than Wal-Mart.  He said they were that big because they were that popular and they were that popular for lots of different reasons and what he thought they knew was a lot of people shop there which meant they generated a lot of traffic. 

He said he was looking at Planning Commissioner Haase’s addendum that was appended to the Planning Commission’s final minutes apparently last evening, and he listed six areas that he had concern with.  He said he recognized that this was not the adopted position of the Planning Commission, but they were his observations which were 1) negative traffic impact; 2) unsatisfactory retail market impact analysis; 3) substantial non-compliance with the commercial design; 4) non-compliance with Horizon 2020; 5) no benefit to public health, safety, and welfare; and 6) zoning history of the commercial node surrounding the intersection of 6^th and Wakarusa. 

He said he would adopt the substantive comments made by Planning Commissioner Haase as his rationale for denying this plan.  He also suggested that this corner with this issue and problem were the result of having made incremental decisions about how that node would be developed over the past number of years.  He said they had agreed to a little bit on one corner and then a little bit on another corner, then they expanded the number and expanded it again, putting themselves in a position of having to make those types of Solomon-esque decisions.  He said maybe the most unfortunate part about this issue was he suspected tomorrow’s headlines were going to be, “No Growth Commission Denies Wal-Mart.”  He said there wasn’t anything in his mind further from the truth.  He said he thought this City Commission had an interest in equally applying and consistently applying the City’s land use documents.  He said unless they were consistent, they might as well not have any documents because if there were more holes than substance, then they were spending a lot of staff time and a lot of the public’s money drafting documents that did not ultimately mean anything.  He said he heard their City Manager tell them there was no good way to restrain possible expansion, and he suspected he was right.  He said future commissions were going to do what future commissions wanted to do.     

He said the southeast corner of that intersection would fight them tooth and toenail if they tried to put a median south of where that median was on Wakarusa right now.  He said he thought there were some major issues extending that median.  If they added the kind of traffic, even the conservative numbers the applicants brought to the Commission, to that intersection, that was a recipe for disaster at that corner.  He said he did not believe that made good public policy sense. 

Staff and the applicant were asked by the Planning Commission whether there was a benefit to the public health, safety, and welfare.  He said staff said there was not.  He said they were asked if they stood by that statement at the Planning Commission meeting and they said yes they did.  He said the applicant was asked that question and he thought that Thompson responded by saying, “There would be a number of benefits to the public.  The plan was more visually appealing compared to the previously approved plan.  The backside would be shielded with a retaining wall and a vegetative berm.  In this plan, the safety of the public has been increased dramatically by keeping the traffic separate from the walking public.  The loading dock would not intrude with the pedestrians and the public.  The front row of parking along 6^th Street would have a berm so the head lights would not point into traffic.”  He said they were paying for 2/3 of a traffic light that he city would put in.  He said he would appreciated those finer points, but he did not think that meant there was a benefit to the public health, safety, and welfare created by a 100,000 square foot store generating that much additional traffic based on those answers to that question. 

He said he did not want to have to deal with this anymore and would love to move on from it.  He said when the applicant made arguments and a presentation to the City Commission that was based on how good the building would look, it reminded him of the old adage in law school when they have bad facts you argued the law and when the law was against you, you argued the facts.  He said he thought in this case they had a lot of discussion about how the building would look and he agreed with Commissioner Highberger in that he did not think this met their design standards and that building needed to be further to the front, they needed a less prominent parking lot, but that still did not answer the bigger questions of,  1) Was it a building they could support from a retail perspective and; 2) Was it going to create so much traffic at that intersection they simply could not address it.  He said putting a light at Harvard along Wakarusa and Inverness would slow traffic, but he did not think it would mean that traffic went through there more quickly or more safely.  He said he thought they needed those two lights, but he did not think they resolved the issues that were created by this much additional vehicle traffic.

Commissioner Rundle said in response to the conversations they heard from various commissioners on transportation, he thought on one hand they were talking about the intersection would serve that development, but that intersection was not just for this development, it was for the entire area of town, including the yet to be developed residential areas, and the additional traffic that was going to come in from the SLT.  He said it was an example of looking at one small piece of the puzzle rather than looking at the big piece of puzzle, which he thought was more going at what Commissioner Highberger was saying in that they needed to improve the grid system and needed to look at the various other ways they were planning their transportation network.  He said they were looking at it intersection by intersection retail store instead of a system wide approach.

Mayor Amyx said concerning the planning along this corridor, there had been considerable changes to the amount of commercial retail.  He said he would go back to the way he thought 6^th Street was to be designed and thought there would be improvements whether or not this particular site was developed or not. 

He said he disagreed with Commissioner Schauner that there were going to need to be some changes along Wakarusa Drive to the south, but shared Commissioner Schauner’s concern there would negative impact from some of those businesses in that area.  He said the development plan met the spirit of the abeyance agreement because there were improvements and changes made such as the lowering of the parking lot and the additional trees on the south. 

He said he disagreed with Commissioner Highberger about the berming and the fact they were trying to hide the building because it did not look good. 

Commissioner Highberger said the hiding of the intense side of the parking lot was what he had a concern with because and it was not what the City’s commercial design guidelines called for.

Mayor Amyx said he thought there had been changes.  He said he thought they addressed the expandability question and defined the main concern of traffic in and around the site and the effect it had to the east and west on 6^th Street.  He said when looking at the corridor, specifically from Wakarusa Drive to K-10, there was the Diamondhead and Mercato site which was the intersection where commercial traffic would generated.  He said he thought they did a good job in living up to those commercial needs in the area.  He thought everyone had worked in the spirit of the agreement, but guessed they were not close.

Mayor Amyx asked staff what the options were regarding the rezonings. 

Corliss said the City Commission could approve the rezonings by a majority vote, send the rezonings back to the Planning Commission by a majority vote or by a super majority vote the City Commission could overrule the Planning Commission and deny the rezonings.  He said if the City Commission was going to table the rezonings, they needed to know for what period of time they were going to table those rezonings.

Mayor Amyx said he understood the City Commission could approve the rezoning and then let whatever action happen on the development plan and that would take care of it also if they could not file a development plan with the Register of Deeds. 

Corliss said if the City Commission approved the rezoning, staff would draft the ordinances, but staff would not put those ordinances on the agenda for first and second reading until all of the conditions of the approval of the rezonings were met, which would be the preliminary development plan.  He said if the City Commission sustained the Planning Commission’s denial of the preliminary development and denied the preliminary development plan, then they would be left in that situation where the zoning ordinances would never take effect.

Commissioner Highberger asked the source of the requirement for a definite time limit on tabling.

Corliss said he could not point to a statute or an ordinance, but it was good parliamentary procedure if the City Commission was going to table those rezonings.

Commissioner Highberger said the City Commission could bring those rezonings back at such time there was a viable plan in front of them.

Corliss said that at least gave some reason why they were tabling the matter. 

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to table both the request for rezoning (Z-06-16A-06) of land approximately 2.21 acres, from PRD-2 (Planned Residential District) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development with revised use restrictions) and the request for rezoning (Z-06-16B-06) of land approximately 15.8 acres, from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development with limited uses) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development with revised use restrictions).  Aye:  Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay: Amyx and Hack.  Motion carried.  

    (20)

Commissioner Rundle said if the City Commission moved to sustain the denial, he asked if that came with the requirements of findings of fact.

Stogsdill said yes.

Commissioner Rundle asked if staff would come back with the rationale next week.

Corliss said there was some discussion at the Commission level the City Commission would make reference to some of the documents in the Planning Commission minutes for the rationale.

Commissioner Rundle said he concurred with Commissioner Schauner about the substance of those points because nobody argued those points were inaccurate.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to extend the meeting to 10:45.  Motion carried unanimously.  

Corliss said it was staff’s recommendation that the City Commission direct staff to prepare findings of fact for the denial of the preliminary development plan.  He said staff would review the minutes and would place the development plan on another agenda so the City Commission confirm those findings of fact as to why the City Commission was denying the preliminary development plan.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to deny the development plan  Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-06/06/06) for Wal-Mart, property located at the northwest intersection of 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive, and directed staff to prepare proposed findings of fact based on the comments presented during this evening’s Commission meeting.  Motion carried 3-2.  Aye:  Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay: Amyx and Hack.