PC Minutes 11/26/07 DRAFT

ITEM NO. 2A:     A TO OS; 6.673 ACRES; 31^ST & OUSDAHL (MKM)

Z-10-24A-07:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 6.673 acres, County A (Agriculture) to OS (Open Space). The property is located at 31^st & Ousdahl. Submitted by Michael Berry, P.E. Professional Engineering Consultants, for RA & JG Limited Company property owner of record.

ITEM NO. 2B:     RS10 & A TO RM15; 56.44 ACRES; 31^ST & OUSDAHL (MKM)

Z-10-24B-07:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 56.44 acres, from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) and County A (Agriculture) to RM15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential). The property is located at 31^st & Ousdahl. Submitted by Michael Berry, P.E. Professional Engineering Consultants, for RA & JG Limited Company property owner of record.

ITEM NO. 2C:     PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE EXCHANGE; 31^ST & OUSDAHL (MKM)

PP-05-06-07: Revised Preliminary Plat for The Exchange addition, approximately 63.111 acres containing 3 lots and 1 tract. The property is located at 31^st & Ousdahl.  Submitted by Michael Berry, P.E. Professional Engineering Consultants, for RA & JG Limited Company property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mary Miller presented items 2A, 2B, and 2C together. She gave the history of the previous requests.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Steve Stamos, complimented Staff for their work on the project. Regarding the Open Space issue, at one time they wanted to install a strip that would separate the phases. The project evolved to include a larger area, from 2 acres to 6 acres. He went on to say that by expanding the site over 6 acres that it will give east-west connectivity in the future. He stated that they would not disturb the corridor. He hoped in the future to sell the small lot west of Ousdahl Road to “square up” the existing land.

Commissioner Harkins asked how much attention was given to connectivity for pedestrians to the retail area to the west and if sidewalks were included.

Ms. Miller replied yes, there would be sidewalks on both sides of 33^rd Street.

Commissioner Harkins asked if a bus could get through the cul-de-sac.

Ms. Miller answered that the cul-de-sac must be large enough to accommodate fire trucks.

Commissioner Finkeldei asked if the driveway would line up with the development across Ousdahl.

Ms. Miller said that projects are offset as to not create conflict.

Commissioner Harris inquired about the reasons for the cul-de-sac length.

Ms. Miller said the length of the cul-de-sac was restricted to provide connectivity options through the site. For the cul-de-sac to extend to the property line it would be much longer than permitted. It is not required to extend to the property line. Given the unlikelihood of future development to the south, the cul-de-sac would be shorter than shown on the plan, but may need to be up to 1000’ to provide access to the various lots.

Commissioner Harris inquired about fire safety.

Ms. Stogsdill said that the fire code has specific requirements for the size of a cul-de-sac paved area to accommodate their trucks. The old Code allowed 1000’ cul-de-sacs. With the new regulations they were trying to reduce that block length for more connectivity.

Ms. Miller stated that the cul-de-sac would still need to be extended.

Commissioner Harkins asked if the sewer study included all lots during Phase II.

Ms. Miller replied, yes.

Commissioner Harris inquired about the traffic with Phase II.

Ms. Miller said that the traffic impact study included both phases and was approved by City standards.

Commissioner Harris inquired about the number of beds.

Mr. Stamos stated there would be 880 beds in Phase I and about 880 beds in Phase II.

Commissioner Eichhorn asked if it was typical that the City would allow a cap on a benefit district.

Mr. McCullough stated there was a lengthy discussion between the applicant, Planning Staff, several City Commissioners and the City Manager related to improving the eastern boundary road. Some of those issues were regarding the unknown alignment of the SLT, the topography of the road, and all of the boundary roads that would be needed for the project.

Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the City would be shooting themselves in the foot by setting a cap at this time.

Mr. McCullough stated that the east side would be asked to contribute.

Commissioner Finkeldei asked if the SLT was built on 32^rd Street would the future arterial be built.

Ms. Stogsdill said that the future arterial was recommended to be located here with the 32^nd Street, SLT alignment.

Commissioner Hird asked how the $600,000 cap was arrived at.

Mr. McCullough replied that was an amount that was figured by the City Managers Office based on estimates of public improvements.

Commissioner Eichhorn asked how a potential commercial development on the lot west of Ousdahl would mesh with the revised Southern Development Plan.

Ms. Miller stated that the Southern Development Plan recommended office uses along Ousdahl.

Commissioner Harris inquired about annexation.

Ms. Miller stated that the annexation had been recommended for approval by Planning Commission, in June of 2007 but had not been considered by City Commission. The new proposal was waiting for the Planning Commission to consider it.

Commissioner Eichhorn asked who would pay for the electricity for the Pump Station.

Mr. McCullough said that the Pump Station would become the City’s pump station so the City would maintain it.

Mr. Stamos stated that there were options such as converting it to a gravity line. He went on to say that the City may decide to continue to run that lift station and City would then take over the costs of it. The applicant would pay to bring it up to a gravity line.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Eddie Davalos, President of Park Hill Neighborhood Association, stated that the neighborhood is landlocked by Haskell, schools, and 23^rd Street. He was concerned about increased traffic on Louisiana and pedestrian safety.

Carol Bowen, lives in Park Hill neighborhood, was concerned about traffic on Louisiana Street. She stated that the City had poor credibility regarding traffic impact studies. She said that Louisiana Street needed a plan and that traffic would be worse once the development was built. She asked who would be responsible for financing the traffic improvements.

Bob Suderman, was also concerned about traffic and said that the 31^st Street corridor study had unanswered questions. He was not concerned about the apartments, but rather the area plan. He said that the Southern Development showed more area as medium-density residential. He did not feel that the traffic study considered full buildout. He said these numbers in the project underestimate traffic in the area. He went on to say that the 31^st Street Study included a recommendation of widening Louisiana Street between 19^th Street and 31^st Street. He asked the State when US-59 would be taken off of Iowa and the estimate was 2015. He felt that traffic at  31^st  Street and Iowa was a critical issue. He wanted to know where the applicant came up with the numbers that 30% of traffic would go south and 70% would go to the north.

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Stamos stated that the assumptions on trip distribution were based on the existing travel patterns and land use. He stated that Trans Systems did the Traffic Impact Analysis and that they had also done the 31^st Street Corridor Study for the City in 2003. He went on to say that Commissioner Harris had asked last year about traffic delays at 31^st and Louisiana due to the project. He did not feel he answered her question adequately at that time. Currently during the AM there is a 31 second delay which would increase by 3 seconds. During the PM hours the current 78.6 second delay would increase by 10.7 seconds to 88.6 seconds.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the CIP projects on Louisiana Street could be given to the neighborhood association so that they could see what was going on.

Mr. McCullough stated that the CIP was on the City website.

Commissioner Finkeldei stated that 6 acres of Open Space was a nice improvement over the original plan. He also stated that the traffic was a big issue for that entire area. He believed the SLT would reduce traffic in the area.

Commissioner Moore asked if the million dollars that was earmarked for the SLT was available for traffic and engineering studies by the City which might be used for this area. He wondered if the City had looked at benefit districts for improvements.

Mr. McCullough said he did not know the answer to that but to his knowledge there were no current discussions on a benefit district.

Commissioner Hird said that the lack of resolution to traffic congestion for the area was a concern.

Commissioner Eichhorn said that the bus service that runs from Lawrence to Johnson County was normally full and that they may look at adding routes. He hoped people would utilize the bus system more and that nice bus facilities should be added to encourage students to use it.

Mr. Stamos said that the development would have covered bus shelters. He was coordinating the location of the shelter with the City Transit Administration.

Commissioner Blaser asked Mr. Stamos if there was any thought about a captive bus system that would run from the development to the campus. He gave the example of The Legends apartment providing their residents a bus that runs from the complex to the university.

Mr. Stamos said that they have previously provided that in communities that did not have a campus or city bus system. He said that a captive bus system might be a possibility, but they would prefer to use the existing transit.

Commissioner Harkins agreed that traffic was a problem but he did not know how much serious effort was really being done to address it. He said that CPC looked at two options to relieve traffic issues, extending Massachusetts thru Haskell or extension of Naismith, but neither were realistic options. He did not think that there were any serious discussions to improve Louisiana Street. He said that at some point they may have to say no more development should be built that will increase traffic in this area.

Commissioner Eichhorn said that T2030 proposed a 31^st Street improvement and a Louisiana improvement.

Commissioner Harris agreed with Commissioner Harkins. She was not against the project itself, but rather the impact on traffic. She felt that one of the Planning Commissions roles was to make sure a plan was in place for impacts. Adequate traffic infrastructure was a requirement for her to vote for the development.

Commissioner Harkins said he would vote for the project because he was optimistic about improvements and that he thought the bus system would be used more and more in the future.

ACTION TAKEN ON ITEM NO. 2A

Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harkins, to approve the rezoning request [Z-10-24A-07] for 6.673 acres from County A (Agricultural) District to OS (Open Space) District and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report.

Unanimously approved 9-0, with student Commissioner Robb voting in opposition.

ACTION TAKEN ON ITEM NO. 2B

Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harkins, to approve the rezoning request [Z-10-24B-07] for 56.44 acres from RS10 (Single-dwelling Residential) District and County A (Agricultural) District to RM15 (Multi-dwelling Residential) District and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report.

Motion carried 8-1, with Commissioner Harris voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in opposition.

ACTION TAKEN ON ITEM NO. 2C

Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harkins, to approve the variance request from Section 20-810(d)(7) which restricts the length of a cul-de-sac to 10 times the required minimum lot width in the required base district or 1000 feet , whichever is less, to permit Ousdahl Road to terminate in a cul-de-sac of up to 1000 feet in length.

Unanimously approved 9-0, with student Commissioner Robb also voting in favor.

Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harkins, to approve the revised Preliminary Plat of Exchange at Lawrence subject to the following revised conditions:

1. Agreements not to protest the formation of benefit districts for future improvements must be executed by the applicant and provided to the Planning Office at the final plat stage. The following agreements will be required at that time:

a. Agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for construction of future minor arterial road on the east border;

b. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future signalization and intersection improvements at the intersection of the future minor arterial road and W. 31^st Streets.

c. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future street improvements to the future arterial on the east property line; with a $600,000 liability limit for the property owner.

d. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for the future construction of Ousdahl Road to the southern property line, if development occurs to the south.

2. The applicant must contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for any necessary permit for development of the wetland shown on the plat and provide the Planning Office with a copy of the permit, or with documentation showing that a permit is not needed.

3. Approval of the Downstream Sanitary Sewer Analysis by the City’s Utility Engineer. If the City Utility Engineer determines that capacity is not available for the entire development, the development must be phased in accordance with availability of sanitary sewer capacity, per City Utility Engineer’s approval.

4. If the requested variance is approved, the right-of-way for Ousdahl must be dedicated to the southern property line.

5. Provision of a revised Preliminary Plat with the following changes:

a. Note added stating that a Transfer of Ownership for the property where the proposed pump station will be located will be executed before building permits may be obtained.

b. Note 10 must be revised to state that “funds must be placed in escrow for the future decommissioning of the pump station and modifications required to establish gravity sewer service for the development.”

c. Easements provided for access to waterlines, per Utilities Department’s approval.

d. Sanitary sewer line along the southeast corner of the property must be shown and a 20’ easement dedicated to accommodate it. If the sewer line is not within this location, please provide documentation to that effect for the City Utility Engineer’s approval.

e. Note added that Lot 3 will require 2 access points if more than 35 dwelling units are proposed.

f. General Note 13 must be revised with the following wording “Natural or non-natural structures or vegetative barriers (including but not limited to trees, shrubbery, berms, fences, and walls) will not be installed within the drainage easement.  The drainage easement will be privately-owned and maintained.” 

g. The plat shall indicate the required minimum habitable floor elevations for structures on lots, or the minimum elevation for a foundation opening(s), which shall be certified by a licensed land surveyor or engineer, on lots adjacent to all drainage easements.

h.  Note added stating that construction activity including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence and this project will not be released for building permits until a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) has been provided and approved by the City Stormwater Engineer.

Commissioner Eichhorn wanted language included to say “in today’s dollars” so that the number would not go down due to inflation.

Commissioner Finkeldei said he assumed the $600,000 would be a future value.

Commissioner Moore said typically the amount would be prorated.

Commissioner Harkins suggested they approve it as it stands and recommend the City Commission modify the language.

Motion carried 8-1, with Commissioner Harris voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in opposition.