Memorandum
City of Lawrence
Planning Department
|
TO: |
David L. Corliss, City Manager |
|
FROM: |
Sheila M. Stogsdill, Interim Planning Director |
|
CC: |
Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager |
|
Date: |
October 24, 2006 |
|
RE: |
Item No. 3 – 6th & Wakarusa – Approved (revised) PC Minutes |
Last night the Planning Commission discussed the draft August 30th Planning Commission minutes regarding the 6th & Wakarusa land use items on tonight’s agenda. Several commissioners provided comment and revisions to the draft minutes which were accepted by the commission and are shown on the following pages in italics font.
Commissioner Haase provided comment related to six areas of concern that he did not believe were adequately represented in the draft minutes. The Commission as a whole discussed the comments provided and, after discussion voted 6-4 to append Comm. Haase’s e-mail communication to the August minutes as his understanding of the discussion that occurred at the August 30th meeting. Commissioners voting in favor were Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Harris, and Krebs. Commissioners voting in opposition were Finkeldei, Harkins, Jennings and Lawson.
PC Minutes 8/30/06 - APPROVED
ITEM NO. 22A: PRD-2 to PCD-2; 2.21 ACRES; 6th & WAKARUSA (LAP)
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 restrictions). The property is located at the intersection of 6th Street & Wakarusa, North side of Highway 40. Submitted by BFA, Inc, for 6Wak Land Investments, LLC, property owner of record.
Items 22A, 22B & 22C were heard together.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Lisa Pool introduced the request and summarized the recommendation.
Staff recommended approval of rezoning approximately 2.21 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District (with use restrictions) and forwarded it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact outlined in the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. The total commercial retail space on the subject property shall not exceed 128,000 gross square feet.
2. The garden center shall not exceed 6,500 square feet.
3. No one single commercial retail use shall occupy more than 99,990 gross square feet of space.
4. Only the permitted uses listed on the attached “Permitted Uses” sheet will be allowed.
5. Revision of the Retail Market Study per approval of City staff.
6. Filing of a Final Development Plan at the Register of Deeds’ Office.
7. Filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds’ Office.
Applicant Presentation, Public Comment and Commission Discussion are provided with Item No. 22C
ACTION TAKEN
Motion by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Lawson, to recommend approval of rezoning of 2.21 acres from PRD-2 to PCD-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact outlined in the staff report and subject to conditions 1-4, 6 and 7 noted above.
Motion by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Haase, to amend the motion to also restrict the sale of groceries.
Motion failed, 4-5-1, with Commissioners Burress, Erickson, Haase, and Krebs voting in favor. Commissioners Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Jennings, and Lawson voted in opposition. Commissioner Harris abstained.
Motion by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Haase, to amend the motion to include condition # 5 to add the retail study back in.
Motion failed, 5-5, with Commissioners Burress, Erickson, Haase, Harris, and Krebs voting in favor. Commissioners Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Jennings, Lawson voted in opposition.
The Commission then voted on the original motion:
Motion by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Lawson, to recommend approval of rezoning of 2.21 acres from PRD-2 to PCD-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact outlined in the staff report and subject to conditions 1-4, 6 and 7 noted above.
Motion carried 6-4, with Commissioners Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Jennings, Krebs, and Lawson in favor. Commissioners Burress, Erickson, Haase, and Harris voted in opposition.
PC Minutes 8/30/06 - DRAFT
ITEM NO. 22B: PCD-2 to PCD-2; 15.8 ACRES; 6th & WAKARUSA (LAP)
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 restrictions). The property is located at the intersection of 6th Street & Wakarusa, North side of Highway 40. Submitted by BFA, Inc, for 6Wak Land Investments, LLC, property owner of record.
Items 22A, 22B & 22C were heard together.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Lisa Pool introduced the request and summarized the recommendation.
Staff recommended approval of rezoning approximately 15.8 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District (with revised restrictions) and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact outlined in the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. The total commercial retail space on the subject property shall not exceed 128,000 gross square feet.
2. The garden center shall not exceed 6,500 square feet.
3. No one single commercial retail use shall occupy more than 99,990 gross square feet of space.
4. Only the permitted uses listed on the attached “Permitted Uses” sheet will be allowed.
5. Filing of a Final Development Plan at the Register of Deeds’ Office.
6. Filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds’ Office.
7. Revision of the Retail Market Study per approval of City staff.
Applicant Presentation, Public Comment and Commission Discussion are provided with Item No. 22C
ACTION TAKEN
Motion by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to recommend approval of rezoning of 15.8 acres from PCD-2 to PCD-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact outlined in the staff report and subject to the removal of condition 7.
Motion carried 6-4, with Commissioners Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Jennings, Krebs, and Lawson voted in favor. Commissioners Burress, Erickson, Haase, and Harris voted in opposition.
PC Minutes 8/30/06 - DRAFT
ITEM NO. 22C: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WAL-MART; 6TH & WAKARUSA (LAP)
PDP-06-06-06: Preliminary Development Plan for Wal-Mart includes approximately 17.98 acres. The property is located at the NW intersection of 6th Street & Wakarusa Drive. The plan proposes approximately 127,632 square feet of commercial development. Submitted by BFA, Inc, for 6Wak Land Investments, LLC, property owner of record.
Items 22A, 22B & 22C were heard together.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Lisa Pool introduced the request and summarized the recommendation.
Staff recommended approval of the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Wal-Mart and forwarding the application to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Revision of the Retail Market Study per approval of City staff.
2. Revision of the Traffic Impact Study per approval of City staff.
3. Submission of a tree survey to determine if existing trees should be retained and the retention of trees on site if warranted per the Commercial Design Guidelines.
4. Revision of the plan to include the following:
a) Reconfiguration of the northern curb cut radius to the approval of the City Engineer.
b) Notation of an existing 6-foot wide, not 5-foot, sidewalk along the north side of W. 6th Street.
c) Notation of reconstruction of the existing 5-foot wide sidewalk along the west side of Wakarusa Drive to a 10-foot wide recreation path.
d) Dimensioned setbacks from the periphery boundary or periphery street rights-of-way per City standards.
e) A note, stating that the ADA building entrances will be constructed to zero entry.
f) Preservation of right-of-way for the future installation of a transit shelter and wheelchair landing pads on 6th Street.
g) Addition of landscaping, i.e. shrubs or greenery that will not interfere with pedestrian flow, within the parking lot islands directly west of the Wal-Mart building.
h) Addition of groundcover or shrubs within the landscape island at the south end of the row of parking which includes 19 spaces in the Wal-Mart parking lot.
i) A note, stating that occupancy permits for proposed buildings will not be issued until the required public drainage improvements are complete, final inspected and accepted by the Public Works Department.
j) A note, specifying that all curb inlets will be constructed per City storm sewer standard details.
k) A note, stating that Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.
l) A note, stating that the 10’ x 10’ box culvert underground detention basin will be privately-owned and maintained.
m) A note, stating that exterior building materials will be constructed within 9 inches of finished grade.
n) A note, stating that native materials will be utilized for at least 30% of all building exteriors.
o) Additional site amenities such as seating areas, public art, or fountains, abutting the Wal-Mart and pad site buildings.
p) A note, stating how pedestrian pathways will be differentiated when crossing drive aisles and driveways (pavers, paint, etc…).
q) Addition of special markings or pavers to differentiate the pedestrian pathway from the 1,800-square foot building to the sidewalk across the driveway to the west.
r) Inclusion of pervious surfacing for 50% of the parking areas which exceed the minimum parking requirements.
s) Inclusion of weather protection within 30 feet of all customer entryways.
t) Inclusion of focal points within 200 feet of the intersection of two streets.
u) Inclusion of pedestrian-scaled lighting along pedestrian walkways.
v) Inclusion of building foundation plantings for the pad site buildings and additional building foundation plantings for the Wal-Mart store.
w) A note, stating that the pad site buildings shall be constructed with the same level of architectural standards as the Wal-Mart store, as determined by Planning Staff.
x) Elimination of the 19 parking spaces along the eastern side of the north-south driveway. Greenspace should replace these spaces.
y) With the elimination of the 9 parking spaces to the west of the 1,800-square foot building, revision of the lot lines for Lot 4C, Block 2 to include the minimum number of required parking spaces.
z) Relocation of the 7,300-square foot building from the northwest corner of the southeast pad site to the northeast corner.
aa) Addition of pedestrian connectivity (via sidewalks and special markers/pavement) from the relocated 7,300-square foot building to the 7,400-square foot building on the southeast corner of the site.
bb) Elimination of the 35 parking spaces running east-west along the southernmost edge of the Wal-Mart parking lot. Greenspace should replace these spaces.
cc) Addition of a north-south pedestrian pathway running from the southernmost internal sidewalk to the Wal-Mart building. This pathway should be placed between the north-south rows of 33 parking spaces.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Todd Thompson stated that he was there to try to have the rezoning and plan approved. He also stated that the plan has a reduction of approved commercial square footage from 154,000 to 128,000. The site will have more landscaping and should be superior to the previously approved plan.
Thompson pointed out that Horizon 2020 states that a Market Study must be conducted when creating a new commercial district, which is not the case with this plan.
Thompson passed out to the Commissioners and Staff a list of proposed conditions.
He stated that the final conditions # 1-6 for the rezonings have all been agreed to and those are not an issue. The applicant did not agree to condition # 7 (regarding the Retail Market Study).
He then led a discussion of the proposed conditions for the development plan. Conditions # 2 & 3 have been met, and they feel they have met the spirit of condition # 1. They would like condition 4(n) be taken out because they feel that synthetic rock will last longer than native building materials.
Ray Frankenberg, site engineer, also spoke about the following proposed conditions:
· 4(z) They would like to keep the existing building location because they feel it will break up the parking lot area and give a better view.
· 4(x) Not a prominent drive and the parking spaces are crucial for employees and businesses.
· 4(bb) Not justified to add more greenspace. They have provided mature trees and can’t afford to reduce parking.
· 4(q) Acceptable to add pedestrian crossing.
· 4(cc) North-South walkway wouldn’t work with carts and would end up reducing greenspace.
· 4(g) Adding planters is okay.
· 4(a) Turn radius of 50’ keeps service vehicles separate from customers, but they will concede to city standards.
· 4(o) Site amenities; they have added some seating around the store and mature trees are a much better visual than art.
· 4(r) Pervious pavement doesn’t work well in this part of the country due to climate.
· 4(t) Focal points have been added with trees and berms.
· 4(u) Pedestrian lighting will use more energy and the walkway at the south end of the parking lot will be minimally used.
· 4(v) More greenspace on plan would be excessive.
· 4(y)(x)(aa) Would go away by default, as they are averse to removing the 19 spaces along the eastern side of the north-south drive.
Thompson stated that this is an enhanced plan and a smaller commercial project than currently on the books and they would like approval.
Commissioner Burress asked staff what the tradeoff was for the design standards and less commercial space. He also inquired if they should be concerned with a lawsuit.
Dave Corliss replied that the lawsuit was not relevant to the Planning Commission’s decision-making process. He would like for the Planning Commission to make recommendations to City Commission that are based on the best interest of the community and in compliance with the codes.
Commissioner Harkins asked staff if they had seen the revised conditions that Mr. Thompson handed out prior to the meeting.
Pool replied no, but that she has been contacted by the applicant to clarify the meaning of certain conditions.
Commissioner Krebs asked that PCD’s be explained and what the commission is required to ask of the applicant under the codes.
Stogsdill answered that under a PCD they have the ability to restrict uses, building types, layout and arrangement. The Commission has a lot of flexibility in terms of how the site is laid out to comply with the Code. She also stated that staff has tried to be consistent in making recommendations based on the Commercial Design Guidelines, even though they were not adopted until recently.
Commissioner Krebs said that it was her understanding that the first time this came forward it was denied but that the lawsuit said they wouldn’t have the ability to limit the uses.
Corliss stated that the City has the ability to restrict zoning uses, in PCD’s and all other zoning districts.
Corliss also stated that the City denied the building permit for Wal-Mart at this location. The BZA up held this denial due to uses not permitted within the zoning district. The City Commission rezoned the property to allow the store, and the applicant filed another lawsuit. The proposed subject rezoning would allow commercial use for certain square footage (127,632 s.f.).
Commissioner Krebs asked if staff had received feedback from the courts about conditional uses.
Corliss stated that the parties have obtained information on what happened in the past on the facts on the case. He also said that there have been some arguments and decisions made by the courts.
Thompson pointed out that the City’s authority to restrict uses is not an issue in any of the lawsuits.
Commissioner Haase asked Thompson what the public gains would be if they approved the project.
Thompson responded that there would be a number of benefits to the public. The plan is 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 drastically to keep the traffic separate from the walking public. The loading dock will not intrude with pedestrians and the public. The front row of parking along 6th Street will have a berm so the headlights will not point into traffic. They are paying for 2/3 of a traffic light that the city will put in.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if staff had discussed these items with the applicant.
Pool responded yes and that staff continues to recommend the conditions listed in the report.
Commissioner Krebs asked about the parking spaces required for this type of development.
Pool directed the Commissioners to page 4 of the staff report:
standard and 10 ADA spaces for pad sites
standard and 10 ADA spaces for pad sites
Commissioner Harkins wanted to clarify that there was no room for negotiation.
Pool stated that staff still supports the recommendations.
Stogsdill stated that staff has have heard the arguments and are new to using the Commercial Design Standards. She also stated that it is the applicant’s burden to argue the conditions and the Planning Commission should make the final decision.
Commissioner Haase asked if the legal agreement required compliance with the Commercial Design Standards.
Scott Beeler, attorney for the City, answered yes.
Commissioner Eichhorn inquired about the lack of 30% native building materials and questioned whether or not cinderblocks could be replaced with brick.
Frankenberg stated that the back portion of the building will be screened with a berm, but they can work toward using more brick material and get it up to 30% if needed.
Commissioner Eichhorn pointed out that the guidelines do not allow for hiding non-native materials.
Commissioner Burress asked staff to what extent they are in compliance with the Commercial Design Standards. He also inquired about the building being closer to the road instead of set back.
Pool said that the lack of some of these elements are due to lot configuration, grade and building scale, and that they have pulled some of the buildings to the street. The guidelines state that 60% of the development’s street frontage should include 25% buildings and 35% landscaping, art, etc.
Commissioner Burress stated that he was worried about 6th Street having acres of parking.
Commissioner Harris questioned the rational for excluding the garden center from the commercial totals.
Pool stated that the garden center is not excluded.
Commissioner Harris inquired about whether or not this intersection is defined as a CC200 and whether the traffic, market area and impact to the neighborhood is consistent with that designation..
Pool stated that it is a CC200 as listed in Horizon 2020.
Stogsdill said that there was not anything called a CC200 in Horizon 2020 until the commercial chapter amendment in 2004. In the previous chapter, there was no distinction between the two types of commercial centers. She recalled that there was a discussion for wanting to designate this intersection as a CC200 as opposed to a CC400.
Commissioner Burress inquired about the Traffic Study.
Pool stated that staff typically does not get into details of the traffic study in the staff report, and that the City Engineer, Traffic Engineer, and Transportation Planner reviewed this study in detail and approved it. She also listed the projected 2025 daily traffic volumes.
Commissioner Harris asked if KDOT reviewed the project.
Stogsdill stated that staff did receive comments by KDOT as part of the review process.
Amy Miller stated that staff is requesting that required information (per Horizon 2020) be provided and the market area can be determined by multiple factors. Horizon 2020 does not address the market area and therefore, staff has not studied what the market area would be.
Commissioner Burress was concerned about staff’s recommendation for approval without the Commission seeing the data.
Commissioner Krebs inquired about information on vacancy rates.
Miller stated that the applicant addressed this with their market study and the assumption by the applicant was that the current vacancy rate would increase.
Commissioner Haase pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan gives the Planning Commission the authority to add conditions to the Retail Study, but that it would be difficult for the Planning Commission to respond if they have not seen the study.
Stogsdill stated that historically the Planning Commission has not seen market retail studies or traffic studies. Those documents are provided for staff review and the result of that analysis is provided in staff reports.
Commissioner Haase was concerned that there is heavy reliance on the DSI Study and that the Planning Commission should take notice of this.
Motion by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to extend the meeting to 11:30pm.
PUBLIC HEARING
Gwen Klingenberg, area resident, was concerned about the traffic and retail impact studies. She stated that traffic counts were taken in June when school was not in session. She asked staff about this and they said that high school would not affect peak traffic counts but she believes this is not true. Travel time will increase from 3 to 14 minutes and traffic will have to go through residential neighborhoods. She also thought it was interesting that they would put in sidewalks that will not even be used. She would like for the building to be moved to the front of the site to increase walkability and decrease the possibility of building expansion.
Kirk McClure, Professor of Urban Planning at KU, stated that he has seen all 3 market studies by Caplan & Associates and that all 3 are flawed and lead to the wrong conclusion for the City. He feels that more stores do not create more people and more spending, and that it just leads to vacant space. He feels the project could hurt downtown and that Lawrence cannot absorb this commercial space at this time.
Commissioner Burress agreed that McClure was right and that normally he would reject this project but that the applicant had a right to build at that location.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked McClure if his position is that the Commission should not approve any commercial projects for several years.
McClure responded yes, the city will be overbuilt.
Commissioner Burress asked McClure if he thought the scenario is similar for residential properties.
McClure answered yes.
Susan Chi, area resident, stated that the traffic study was not accurate and that the high school uses the track field and aquatic center that line the street near the proposed site. She feels the building setback should be closer to the street to eliminate large traffic numbers.
Alan Black, speaking for the League of Women Voters, feels that the staff chose specific portions of the adopted plans and that some of the policies were contrary to the plan in terms of size. He also feels the retail study is incomplete. The city has been involved in several lawsuits and the Planning Commission should not be influenced by that. He stated that the development code in some cases allows for expansion so the LWV would like further expansion restricted.
Commissioner Burress asked Black how the proposal is not better than what they are currently zoned for, and why they weren’t supporting zoning with less allowable commercial space.
Black responded by saying that it is still too large.
Mark O’Lear, area resident, expressed concern for increased traffic. He inquired about whether the site would be developed as non-conforming, since it is a CC200.
Alan Cowles, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, expressed concern about future expansion and wants the applicant to be completely honest about their future expansion plans and accept a restriction on expansion.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Cowles if he wanted the applicant to bind the property for 50 years.
Cowles responded that he would be comfortable with a 10-20 year bind on the property.
Bill Newsome, property owner, stated that the legal abeyance was completed before the new Commercial Design Standards were passed. He believed the City anticipated that the spirit of the design standards would be followed and he feels that they have followed the standards. He also said that the CC200 designation occurred after zoning approval for 154,000 square feet of commercial space and there have been zero discussions about expanding the store in the future and that this is not the intention.
Greg DiVilbiss, property owner across the street from the project, stated that every tenant surrounding this area signed a petition except one person to support the Wal-Mart plan. He feels that it would bring more shoppers to the area and Wal-Mart would be an anchor store in the area. He thinks it is an attractive store and encouraged the Planning Commission to endorse the plan.
Commissioner Lawson stated that the Commissioners have a copy of the DSI retail study and that it makes a reference to Lawrence losing buying power. He asked if Mr. DiVilbiss had any comment.
DiVilbiss said that people will be drawn to the area and will stay to shop in the area at the stores surrounding the proposed Wal-Mart.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Pool stated that one of the considerations that staff had about not bringing the Wal-Mart store up to the street front is that it cannot physically fit between the pad site lots. The scale of the building and the suburban setting were also considered. Since one of the purposes of bringing buildings to the street frontage is to increase walkability, the large scale of this building in a suburban setting does not lend itself to fulfilling this purpose.
Thompson stated that staff did a thorough evaluation of the Design Standards and applied those Design Standards very fully to this project. He went on to say that the traffic study found that 5pm-6pm had higher peak traffic than 3pm-4pm and that the traffic study is not flawed in that regard. Thompson also said that the square footage of the plan has been reduced since the traffic counts for the previous plan were conducted, so there could be a reduction in traffic. He stated that he cannot predict what will happen in 50 years but that there has not been any discussion about expanding the store and that the vacant property is for sale.
Frankenberg pointed out that the store was not built for expansion and they have agreed to the conditions of the restricted building square footage. He said that the traffic study has been studied by the City, the developers, and KDOT.
Commissioner Burress referenced the legal abeyance, stating that they have the authority to demand conformance with the Design Standards.
Thompson stated that they agreed to be bound by the new Design Standards before they were adopted and that they have tried to agree to many of staff’s recommendations, but that there should be a little leeway since the standards were not adopted when the application was first submitted.
Commissioner Lawson inquired if the plan would provide for year-round sales in the Garden Center.
Thompson answered that it is 6,147 square feet, fully enclosed, but is set up for year round sales.
Commissioner Haase asked Thompson to address the remarks that McClure made regarding the retail market.
Thompson responded that the time for a retail market study is when a new commercial shopping district is created, and that he believed that a market study was not required for this proposal but that they agreed to do one when it was requested by staff.
Commissioner Haase wanted to know Thompson’s thoughts on McClure’s comments on Lawrence being overbuilt.
Thompson replied that McClure’s approach of vacancy rates creates a false situation.
Commissioner Harris stated that the language in the traffic study said that traffic will increase in the surrounding neighborhoods and asked Thompson to comment on this.
Thompson read the letter written by the developers’ traffic engineer that said customers will take an alternate route out of the project, not into the neighborhoods.
Commissioner Burress wanted to know what would happen if the Commission turns the plan down.
Corliss responded that then they would be back to the existing zoning on the property.
Commissioner Eichhorn wanted to know if the zoning is a separate lawsuit.
Corliss indicated the City’s zoning of the property was the subject of one of the lawsuits.
Beeler disagreed with Thompson’s statement regarding the Design Guidelines. He stated that the intention was that the Design Guidelines would be considered and should be applied as they are to any other development.
Corliss read from the abeyance agreement which said that the City and staff will conduct a thorough study for full review.
Motion by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to extend the meeting to 12:00pm.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Krebs wanted to know what information is gained from a traffic impact study.
Stogsdill replied that the traffic impact study identifies improvements that would be made and conditions that would be recommended.
Commissioner Jennings stated that all retail establishments cannot adapt to any size building. He gave the example of the Tanger Mall which was never meant to be a local center, it was meant to support traffic off the turnpike. He pointed out that vacancies exist and there needs to be an anchor for the intersection, which cannot be done with a Kwik Shop. He also said it has the potential to be the nicest intersection in Lawrence. He also stated that to expect a business to know where they will be in 20 years from now in the retail market is unreasonable. Jennings also stated that the plan should include the 50 foot radius drive that is requested so that the trucks can get in and out safely.
Commissioner Burress said that local impacts would be positive but that the impact on the City as a whole was more important. He feels that the Commission should restrict future expansion as best they can and restrict the sale of groceries as well. He also expressed that he wanted the building on the street and a pedestrian friendly building.
Commissioner Haase stated that the Commission needed to be consistent with what they proposed a few years ago with consideration of future expansion. He said that the Dillon’s to the south could be expanded to become an anchor for the area. He feels that Wal-Mart should look for a different location so that they could expand into a Supercenter if that is their intention. Haase was concerned that the proposed plan would add to trip generation which will leave this intersection very congested. He also thinks that the KDOT corridor simulation study should be taken into account.
Commissioner Krebs stated that the traffic impact study guides how road improvements will accommodate development.
Commissioner Haase stated that Wal-Mart would be a primary target for trip generation and that the Planning Commission should do a review and let the City Commission do what they think they need to do.
Motion by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to extend the meeting to 12:30am.
Commissioner Eichhorn pointed out that the intersection of 6th and Kentucky has similar traffic and nobody has said it has failed. He feels the plan should be held up to conditions recommended by staff.
Commissioner Harkins was concerned about what the basis of rejection would be.
Commissioner Haase replied that site trip generation and potential traffic problems could be the basis of rejection.
Commissioner Harkins commented that the project review included a review from KDOT, who gave the project a green light.
Commissioner Burress pointed out that 6th and Kentucky do not cross and that dispersing traffic to neighborhoods is a good point but dispersing into a cul-de-sac neighborhood will not work.
Commissioner Haase stated that his point is that there will be 75,000 trips in the area.
Commissioner Krebs said that she did not feel comfortable denying the application based on traffic issues because they do not traditionally deny applications based on traffic generation.
Commissioner Haase replied that long-term consequences should be what the Planning Commission takes into consideration.
Commissioner Harkins stated that if there is a looming transportation crisis in a certain area of town that maybe it is due to current zoning and maybe they should go back and change the zoning. He went on to say that to take a project based on existing zoning and then deny it because of traffic concerns would be like setting a trap.
Commissioner Burress asked staff to look at Fort Collins, CO as an example of buildings being closer to the street and loading docks on the backside.
Commissioner Krebs stated that the applicant said the current configuration would not allow the building to move closer to the street. She also is in favor of restricting the sale of groceries.
Commissioner Harkins said he would prefer to see more greenspace up front because he lives in that area and would rather see trees than a huge building facade.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that items 22A and 22B would downzone the site which would reduce traffic and have less retail impact.
Motion by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to extend the meeting to 12:45am.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Lawson, to recommend approval of the plan subject to conditions as revised by applicant.
Motion by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to extend the meeting to 1:00am.
Motion by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, to restrict the sale of firearms.
Motion carried 6-4, with Commissioners Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Harris, and Krebs voting in favor. Commissioners Finkeldei, Jennings, Lawson, and Harkins voting in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Burress, to amend the motion to keep the conditions 4 n, o, p, q, s, t, v, w, x, y, z, aa, bb, cc (all conditions except r & u) as recommended by staff.
Motion carried 9-1, with Commissioner Finkeldei voting in opposition.
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 4 r and 4 u.
Motion failed 5-5, with Commissioners Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Jennings, and Lawson voting in favor. Commissioners Burress, Erickson, Haase, Harris, and Krebs voting in opposition.
Adjourn meeting at 12:55am.
APPENDIX TO 08/30/06 PC MINUTES
-----Original Message-----
From: John Haase [mailto:jhaase@haaseandlong.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 4:06 PM
To: Sheila Stogsdill
Subject: RE: PC minutes
Sheila,
I have been over the minutes several time and find them to be a bit thin. I find it difficult to repair the minutes. I am more comfortable attempting to restate the findings of fact upon which the denial was based.
As I recall, there were six areas of concern: (1) negative traffic impact; (2) unsatisfactory retail market impact analysis; (3) substantial noncompliance with commercial design standard; (4) noncompliance with Horizon 2020; (5) no benefit to public health, safety, and welfare; and (6) the zoning history of the commercial node surrounding the intersection of 6th and Wakarusa.
1. I argued that the Wal-Mart project would substantially add to traffic congestion within the 6th Street corridor and provided the following information. A recent KDOT traffic study reported that, if current and projected commercial development within the corridor is allowed, level of service will degrade to the point of failure. Within the KDOT report is a warning that future 6th Street improvements will come at the expense of the community and not KDOT. The KDOT Corsim model did not take into consideration traffic resulting from the residential development of the 3 sections north of 6th and West of Folks road. It is likely that 75,000 trips per day will be generated within this area heavily impacting 6th Street. When the northwest corner of 6th and Wakarusa first received commercial zoning it was widely believed that a home improvement superstore (Lowes) would occupy the space. A home improvement superstore generates 35.05 trips per 1,000 SQFT per day on weekdays. A free-standing discount store (Wal-mart) generates 56.63 trips per 1,000 SQFT per day on weekdays or 62% more than a home improvement center. The proposed Wal-mart would generate 5,663 trips per weekday and 7,203 trips per day on weekends.
2. I argued that the DSI retail impact analysis had only been submitted in draft form and has not been accepted. Substantial concerns have been raised about the mechanics of the report as well as methodologies and assumptions. Horizon 2020 empowers the planning commission to provide stipulations regarding how the analysis is accomplished. Concerns regarding the DSI report have not been addressed and the planning commission has not been consulted. There are serious questions as to the impact of a second Wal-Mart store (which contains a grocery department). When Wal-Mart expanded its Iowa Street location a 40,000 SQFT grocery store closed. It is claimed by some that a community can support 1 grocery store per each 10,000 persons in the population. Lawrence currently has 11 grocery stores to serve a population of approximately 85,000.
3. Several commissioners expressed concern that the proposed project substantially departed from commercial design standards. The applicant responded to these concerns by suggesting that the extensive landscaping of the facility was a solid alternative to design compliance. No convincing arguments were made to overturn several concerns (well documented in the minutes) regarding departure from the commercial design standards.
4. Horizon 2020 identifies the commercial node as a CC200 development. However, commercial development is approaching twice the 200,000 SQFT of a CC200 district. Care should be exercised in allowing additional commercial development that exceeds the conceptual magnitude in the comprehensive plan.
5. I noticed that the staff report contained the following language, "... [the project] would not provide a tangible benefit to the public health, safety, and welfare". I asked if this was a fair statement. Staff deferred to the applicant (whose remarks are well recorded in the minutes). No argument by staff, the applicant, or the planning commission was ever made suggesting that the project would provide any public benefit.
6. I provided a brief history of commercial development within the 6th and Wakarusa node. None of this information was recorded in the minutes. It is important because it documents how elected and appointed officials have tried to limit the impact of commercial development. Denial of a development plan for a retail business that creates traffic at the high end trip generation statistics is consistent with past actions to limit retail space and adverse traffic impacts. Approximately 8 years ago the northwest corner of 6th and Wakarusa was zoned for a corporate headquarters campus. Retail commercial development was allowed to move forward at a rapid pace south of 6th between Folks Road and Congressional. When the World Company abandoned its plans, a high-density retail commercial development was proposed. This was rejected. Between 4 and 5 years ago a 132,000 SQFT project was proposed for the northwest corner. This came during the Home Depot hearings and it was widely believed that the development was for a Lowe’s Home Improvement Center. During planning commission discussions it became clear that approval of the proposed development would preclude any further retail commercial develop within the node (i.e. the northeast corner of 6th and Wakarusa). A little time passed and 62,000 of retail commercial zoning was approved for the northeast corner. However, this zoning came with serious use restrictions designed to limit vehicular traffic. Next came Bauer Farms and the use restrictions were substantially removed to allow drive-through food service operations. As trip generation has ratcheted up at this critical intersection, it is only prudent to avoid or limit any future impacts.
John Haase