1 & 2. REZONING - REZ AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT - SUP Vicinity of the southeast corner of College Boulevard and Nieman Road

Transcription

1 1 & 2. of the southeast corner of College oulevard and Nieman Road GENERL COMMENT: This item was continued from the November 25, 2013, Planning Commission agenda. Several neighbors spoke in opposition to this request; these concerns included traffic, transition to the residential of the adjacent homes, stormwater, property values and density. The Planning Commission continued the application to request the applicant work on the transition to the homes surrounding the property, office layout, and stream corridor width. Staff does support the revisions to the plan that will be outlined in the staff report. 1. PPLICNT: K Properties, LLC is the applicant for this request. 2. REQUESTED CTION: The applicant is requesting a rezoning from RP- 3, Planned Garden partment District, CP-1, Planned Restricted usiness District, and CP-O, Planned Office uilding District, to RP-6, Planned High-Rise partment District, CP-O, Planned Office uilding District, and MXD, Planned Mixed Use District, to allow a mixed use development. special use permit is also being requested on Parcel VI to allow a nursing home and continuing care community for an indefinite period of time. 3. LOCTION: The acre tract is located in the vicinity of the southeast corner of College oulevard and Nieman Road. 4. CHRCTER OF THE NEIGHORHOOD: The neighborhood is characterized by a variety of uses. There are single-family homes, duplexes, and multi-family residential uses in the area. 5. LND USE ND ZONING PTTERNS: cross College oulevard to the north is the College Hill and Grand Oaks subdivisions, zoned R-1, Single- Family Residential District. t the northwest corner of College oulevard and Neiman Road intersection, is a church also zoned R-1. condominium development, zoned RP-5, Planned partment House District, is located on the west side of Nieman Road (Marbella Condominiums). lso on the west side of Nieman Road are duplexes zoned, R-2, Two-Family Residential District (College Meadows), and single-family homes are also located west of Nieman, which are zoned R- 1 (Cross Creek). To the south of the application area is property zoned R- 2 and developed with duplexes (lue Valley and College Park Estates). Cross Creek Park zoned R-1 is located at the very southeast corner of the requested rezoning. U.S. 69 Highway is located to the east of the property.

2 6. HISTORY: This property has been rezoned several times over the last 30 plus years. In 1978, a rezoning was approved to RP-3 to allow for 546 dwelling units on 63 acres for a density of 8.7 units per acre. nother 20.5 acres were rezoned to CP-1 that allowed 155,000 square feet of retail were also included in this approval. In 1981, the RP-3 zoned land was split to rezone a portion of the ground to CPO-. This classification now is CP-O. This rezoning was approved to allow 214 dwelling units on 27 acres for a density of 7.93 units per acre. The CP-O property included nine buildings with a total floor area of 500,000 square feet. The CP-1 area did not change with this plan. rezoning was approved in 1982 strictly to change a stipulation pertaining to stormwater run-off. No changes were approved to the overall squarefootage. Combinations of these three zonings are shown on the present zoning map for this application area. In 1984, this property was rezoned in combination with the land at the southwest corner of I-435 and US-69 Highways which is associated with REZ The 1984 rezoning was approved for a total of 1,600,000 square feet of development zoned CP-O and 400,000 square feet of CP-2 development. special use permit also permitted a 500,000 square-foot hotel and a 45,000 square-foot cultural center. This plan did show the currently required stream corridor being piped through the site. The land associated with REZ would have been rezoned to R-1 and approved for a total of 80 single-family lots. However, this zoning was never published because a stipulation required KDOT to approve a break in access for a proposed southbound off-ramp on U.S. 69 Highway before this zoning was published. In 1988, a rezoning was approved that kept the same zoning boundaries as the approved 1984 zoning. This rezoning changed some stipulations but kept the square-footage as the 1984 request. Once again, this rezoning was not published due to the same stipulation as the 1984 rezoning. Without the publication of the ordinance the zoning does not become effective, therefore, the property is still zoned as it was prior to the 1984 request. The Future Development Plan Map identifies this area as appropriate for commercial, Office and Parks and Recreation uses. These classifications are based upon the 1984 zoning that is not published.

3 7. NLYSIS OF PPLICTION: a. DEVELOPMENT PLN: The applicant is requesting rezoning from RP-3, CP-1 and CP-O, to RP-6, CP-O and MXD to allow a mixed use development. special use permit is also requested on Parcel VI at the southeast corner. oth of the requests will be discussed in this staff report. The development plan submitted by the applicant breaks the 93 acres into 10 different parcels. Following a discussion of the overall street network, each parcel will be discussed separately under each zoning classification and the overall street network will be discussed first. The four proposed office parcels will be discussed together. In addition to this, staff is providing a Staff Issue section at the end of the analysis portion. OVERLL STREET NETWORK: With the development of this site the applicant will be constructing a relocated Switzer Road from the existing bridge to College oulevard. The intersection with College oulevard will be constructed where 109 th Street currently connects with College oulevard on the north side of the thoroughfare. In addition to this the applicant will be constructing 113 th Street from a round-about in the newly constructed Switzer Road to connect where 113 th Street is located on the west side of Nieman Road. Switzer Road has been shifted more northerly and now splits the office zoning. roundabout is proposed where Switzer Road and 113 th Street meets. This roundabout will also have an exit from the parking lot serving Parcel X. Finally, the applicant is working with an adjacent property owner to buy additional land where Indian Creek Parkway presently terminates. Once this land is purchased, Indian Creek Parkway will be constructed to the southern roundabout on Switzer Road.

4 OVERLL DEVELOPMENT: The applicant is proposing a total of: Zoning District Units/Sq. ft. creage Density November 25 th Plan Units/Sq. ft. RP units units/acre 881 units acres MXD (retail) 39,860 sq. ft. 32,000 sq. ft. MXD 412 units 7.37 acres 55.9 units/acre 392 units (residential) CP-O 600,250 sq ,500 ft. SUP 140 units 6.02 acres units/acre 140 units Each of these areas is broken out into individual parcels and will be discussed separately. The applicant has provided a corner feature at College oulevard and Nieman Road. This is an outdoor patio with a trellis feature. s the City has been attempting to do in all locations for new developments, a sidewalk plan was provided by the applicant. n internal sidewalk system is being provided from each building out to the public streets and between buildings and amenities. ll of these items will continue to be reviewed as the site develops. RP-6 ZONING DISTRICT: The RP-6 zoning district is not a district that is utilized throughout the City on a regular basis. This district allows the most dense multi-family of any district. It requires fourstory buildings and allows a density of up to 29 units per acre with no incentives. Later the most recent developments rezoned to this district will be discussed as a comparison to this request. RP-6 PRCEL I: This acre property is located at the southeast corner of College oulevard and Nieman Road. total of 361 dwelling units (31.97 units per acre) are proposed with this property. This does require a density bonus of 10.2 percent. Density bonuses will be discussed in a later paragraph. ccess to this parcel is provided from College oulevard and is split between this parcel and Parcel III, which is zoned MXD. This connection continues southerly until it connects to 113 th Street. ngled parking

5 is provided along this drive. total of 632 parking stalls are being provided which meets ordinance requirements. The lot coverage for this parcel is percent, which also meets ordinance requirements (maximum 70 percent). total of five, four-story buildings are proposed for this parcel. Several of these buildings, depending on the grade will have a fifth story on one side which will be attached garages. uilding 5 will have underground parking and wraps a pool and outdoor amenity. Each of the buildings is pulled off the street with parking located in between the building and College oulevard or Nieman Road. Carports and garages are proposed to be adjacent to these public streets. The applicant has stated that because of grades the parking areas along the public streets will not be as visible. central green area is located in the middle of this parcel, which has a trail. The common open space is 17.9 percent, which meets ordinance requirements. The buildings are proposed to be constructed of cast stone, stone veneer, lap siding, stucco and composite shingles. Staff did not review these building materials or design. t the time of final development plan, the building architecture will be reviewed against the rchitectural Design Standards. ll of the buildings are proposed to be internally accessed without breezeways. Elevators will be installed to serve the units. Several of the buildings are between 260 and 270 feet long. The Design Standards do limit the length of the buildings to 200 feet in length. t the time of final development plan for each parcel a deviation request will have to be approved to allow for the increase of the building. Finally, the rchitectural Design Standards require a variety of building types for apartment complexes. This requirement will also be reviewed for each parcel at the time of final development plan approval. The materials, design, and building length is similar in all four RP-6 parcels. RP-6 PRCEL II: This parcel is located at the southeast corner of 113 th Street and Nieman Road and extends southerly to the residential property on the south. Parcel II has a total of 281 dwelling units on 9.13 acres for a density of units per acre. density bonus of 6.1 percent is required for this parcel. The density bonuses will be discussed in a later paragraph for this parcel and Parcel I.

6 ccess is provided from 113 th Street, which aligns with the drive serving Parcels I and III on the north side of 113 th Street. second access point is provided from Nieman Road, which aligns with the public street on the west side of Nieman Road. The parking ordinance would require 464 parking stalls which is being provided by the applicant. The lot coverage for this parcel is percent, which meets ordinance requirements of 70 percent. total of five buildings are provided in this parcel. Each of these buildings is pulled away from the adjacent streets with parking, detached garages and carports located along the street. Several of these buildings, depending on the grade will have a fifth story on one side which will be attached garages. central green area is located in the middle of this parcel, which has a pool and clubhouse and other amenities. picnic area is and trail is also included in this area. The common open space is percent, which meets ordinance requirements. Two major changes have occurred to this parcel. uilding 5 has increased in size and will include underground parking. This allows for a larger green space and outdoor amenity adjacent to this building. This larger building also allowed for uildings 2 and 3 to be reduced in height and a larger buffer is provided along the southern property line. This buffer is approximately 60 feet in width to the drive and then 90 to 100 feet to uildings 2 and 3. These two buildings are three/four split with the garages being the bottom story. small berm and landscaping are shown along this property line but additional information will be provided at the time of final development plan, if this rezoning is approved. RP-6 PRCEL IV: Located just to the east of Parcel II, Parcel IV has a total of dwelling units on acres for a density of units per acre. This parcel does not require density bonuses. Residential homes are located just south of this parcel. ccess to the parcel is similar to Parcel II, with a drive from 113 th Street. Parcel II and IV is divided by a 25-foot landscape median. Parking spaces and garages are located along this division line as well as a landscaped area. total of 542 stalls are provided, which meets ordinance requirements. The lot coverage for this parcel is percent.

7 total of five buildings will be provided on this parcel. uildings 1 and 5 are proposed to be four stories in height. uilding 1 is a new proposal since the last public hearing. Underground parking is provided for uilding 5 which allows for a larger amenity area on this parcel. The staff did request the drive to the south of uilding 5 for better access on this parcel. uildings 2, 3, and 4 will be three stories in height with the garage side being the bottom fourth story. uildings 3 and 4 are approximately 190 feet from the homes to the southeast and 90 feet from the homes to the south. The drive along the south property line is similar to the drive on Parcel II, which is approximately 60 feet from the homes to the south. This drive near uildings 3 and 4 is 90 feet from the homes to the southeast and will be separated by landscaping. menities include a pool and clubhouse, fire pit and a sidewalk around the central green. The common open space is percent, which meets ordinance requirements. RP-6 ND SUP PRCEL VI: This parcel is the property subject to the special use permit request (SUP ) for a nursing home and continuing care facility, as well as it being rezoned to RP-6. The applicant has stated that there is not a tenant yet and this parcel could be developed under the SUP request or as an apartment building. The current design is shown showing a potential nursing home on the property, therefore, less parking is provided and a larger buffer is shown from the residential properties to the west. If this parcel is developed as an apartment building a revised preliminary plan will most likely be required to show a new parking and building layout. This would occur once a tenant is identified. The proposal proposes a four-story apartment building with associated surface parking. ccess is provided from Indian Creek Parkway which will be constructed as part of this overall development. total of 140 units are proposed on the 6.02 acres for a density of units per acre. total of 83 stalls are provided on-site, which will be evaluated with a final development plan approval to insure compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance requirements. This is a substantial reduction in parking from the November 25 th plan and allows for a 130-foot buffer from the single-family homes to the west. This open space does have a trail provided and a gazebo/picnic area and the common open space is percent.

8 Due to the proximity of the property lines and requirements of the Fire Code, a trail will have to be provided around the building which allows for a 12-foot path and two four-foot wide pavers on each side. This would allow for a 20-foot emergency access drive to serve emergency vehicles. MXD PRCEL III: Parcel III is a four-story apartment building that wraps a parking garage and includes wings that project beyond this central building area. The southern wing has been moved to the western side of the building to provide a street presence along 113 th Street. This apartment building has a total of 412 units on 7.37 acres for a density of units per acre. ccess to this parcel is served from College oulevard with a drive that splits Parcels I and III. ngled parking is provided along this drive that serves the MXD property. total of 14,003 square feet of retail is provided on the eastern facing first floor. This retail will provide neighborhood type uses for the adjacent residential properties. Outdoor areas are located on the north and south areas of the building and are enclosed with the apartment wings. The pool and clubhouse are located in the southern area and will serve the residential units. total of 653 parking stalls is provided in the parking garage. With this resubmittal, a second point of access into the garage is provided from the retail area (eastern side). This will allow for patrons of the retail area to park in this garage. The MXD district does not have maximum lot coverage but the site plan identifies it as percent for this parcel. MXD PRCEL VII: total of four buildings are proposed to be constructed with this MXD parcel. The previous plan only provided three buildings. ccess is provided from a single drive from the new Switzer Road. total of 25,857 square feet is proposed on this parcel. uilding 1 is proposed to be a bank with a drive-thru. The three remaining buildings are proposed to be a retail uses. total of 97 parking stalls are provided on-site, which is more than required to be provided by ordinance. The parking stalls along College oulevard are proposed to be screened by a hedge, with the bank drive-thru along Switzer Road similarly screened.

9 8. STFF NLYSIS: CP-O PRCELS VIII through XI: total of 600,250 square feet is proposed for the office parcels. This square-footage is broken up between four buildings. The northern three buildings are lined with the exterior walls facing U.S. 69 Highway with the long portion of southern building facing north. Switzer Road is now proposed to split Parcel IX and X instead of being on the southern side of the office development. This allows for the parking areas to be broken up and reduce the large amount of parking in any one area. These buildings range in height from three to six stories in height. uilding IX and XI are two six-story buildings while uilding VIII is three stories and uilding X is four stories. uilding VIII is 92,500 square feet, uilding IX is 200,750 square feet, and uilding X is 121,000 and XI is 186,000 square feet. Open plaza areas and parks are located between the buildings adjacent to each other. n additional green area is located between the Switzer Road frontages and the buildings on Parcels IX and X. The northern two parcels have a total of 1,173 parking spaces provided. This meets ordinance requirements. Structured parking is provided just to the east of uilding IX. This parking will have just two floors to the parking area. landscaped hedge will screen the parking lot from the adjacent street network and will be finalized with the final development plan. The parking lots serving Parcels X and XI will have a total of 1,228 parking spaces, which is exactly the amount required by ordinance. Structured parking is provided just to the east of uilding XI and is similar to the parking structure on the northern parcel. a. STFF ISSUES: The staff had two overarching issues with the plan that was reviewed and continued by the Planning Commission at the November 25 th, 2013 meeting. These two issues were the stream corridor relocation and the proposed density but mostly the density as it relates to the transition to the existing homes on the southern side of the RP-6 areas. The stream corridor issue will be addressed in the Environmental Impact section.

10 The applicant has changed the plan in to address the site plan concerns of staff. Parcels II and IV provides an approximately 60- foot buffer on the southern property line and Parcel IV provides a 90-foot buffer from the homes to the southeast. The actual buildings are almost 100 feet from the southern homes and 190 feet from the homes to the southeast. In addition, these four buildings closest to the homes have been reduced to three/four story splits. Staff does believe that this increased buffer and reduction in height provides a much better transition to the homes to the south and southeast. Over the past 10 years there have been several properties zoned RP-6. These projects include the rookridge Condominiums at 103 rd Street and ntioch Road (144 units on 47.8 acres for a density of 3.01 units per acre), Lodge at Highlands Village at Indian Creek Parkway and Roe venue (230 units on 21.5 acres for a density of 10.7 units per acre), and The Village of Overland Park at the southeast corner of 159 th Street and ntioch Road (600 units on 37.6 acres for a density of 15.9 units per acre). The Claremont located at 109 th Street and Quivira Road (335 units on 16.5 acres for a density of 20.3 units per acre) was approved in The Claremont has been built and the Lodge at Highlands Village is currently under construction. None of these share a lot line with R- 1 or R-2 zoning districts. The Claremont and rookridge are across thoroughfares (Quivira Road and 103 rd Street) from the closest R-1 zoning. In addition to these RP-6 developments two other recent large scale multi-family developments have recently been built. These include Mission Farms, located at Indian Creek Parkway, and two apartment projects at Prairie Fire, located at 135 th Street between Lamar venue and Nall venue. Mission Farms was approved for 212 multi-family units on 3.46 acres for a density of 61.2 units per acre. The eastern apartment development on Prairie Fire is 300 units on 8.03 acres for a density of units per acre. The western apartment development on Prairie Fire is 125 units on 4.16 acres for a density of units per acre. Neither of these developments have a border with residential developments. The closest residential is either across a thoroughfare or a golf course in both instances.

11 Staff was concerned with the appearance of this development from College oulevard and Nieman Road. The majority of the views are of garages and parking areas. While this is still a concern with staff, the applicant has agreed to continue to work with staff on this design. s an alternative the applicant is working to provide a streetscape along the entrance from College oulevard between Parcels I and III. This design is carried along 113 th Street with uildings 5 on Parcels I, II and IV pulled closer to 113 th Street and frame this intersection. ll of these buildings are four-story in height. This is an alternate design that staff does support. Parcel VII is proposed to be rezoned to MXD, but does not show many of the characteristics of a mixed use plan. This parcel does resemble a CP-2 type development and does have the four buildings along Switzer Road without parking along this road. However, based upon the official notice this parcel cannot be rezoned CP-2 without having to start the rezoning process over. Staff does feel that the design could be much better, but staff is supportive of this layout. When actual tenants are identified there might be options to do a more compatible design with the MXD District. nother concern staff mentioned with the previous plan is that the CP-O area did not meet the required Site Design Standards. Staff does support this revised layout based upon the relocation of Switzer Road to split the office development. In addition, the staff feels the two buildings on the north and south now relate to each other much better and provide large open spaces/amenities between the parcels, similar to a corner green design. In addition, the size of the parking areas appears to be broken into smaller parcels than the previous plan. This is a minor change to the previous plan but has staff support as it meets the Site Design Standards. With the relocation of the stream corridor all significant trees are being removed within this area. Therefore, the applicant is required to replant a portion of these trees. tree survey has been conducted on the property. If this request is approved, staff will work with the applicant to try to replant as many of these trees as possible. However, it is unlikely that all of the required caliper will be able to be planted on-site. Therefore, a deviation may be required at the time of final development plan approval.

12 The applicant has worked with staff in an attempt to address staff s concerns and the concerns brought up by the Planning Commission. Staff does support the additional buffer and transitions to the residential properties as well as the new office layout. While not all design concepts have been met that were discussed with the initial application, staff does feel there are alternative design concepts that have been provided such as the streetscape along 113 th Street. With these changes, staff does support the plan as proposed. DENSITY ONUSES: Parcels I and II density is above the RP-6 allowed density of 29 units per acre. Therefore Parcel I (31.97 units per acre) needs a 10.2 percent density bonus and Parcel II (30.77 units per acre) needs a 6.1 percent density bonus. The applicant has provided density bonuses for increasing common open space (one percent density bonus for each percent above the required 10 percent open space) and for below-grade or structured parking (up to 20 percent density increase if 50 percent of the required parking is provided below-grade or in a structure). Parcel I is providing 17.9 percent common open space, which allows for a 7.9 percent density bonus. total of 30.4 percent of the required parking is provided below grade under uilding 5. This would allow for a 12 percent density bonus. Therefore, between the two incentives the applicant is obtaining a 19.9 percent density bonus (10.2 percent required). Parcel II is providing percent common open space, which allows for a 2.57 percent density bonus. total of 35.1 percent of the underground parking is provided below grade under uilding 5. This would allow for a 14 percent density bonus. Therefore, Parcel II would be permitted a density bonus of percent, which is more than the required 6.1 percent. Staff does support both of these density bonuses, however, the Site Plan Review Committee will meet on January 8 th to review these bonuses. Staff will provide a verbal update to the Planning Commission. b. TRFFIC IMPCTS: ecause of the major change in land use proposed on this site compared to the existing Comprehensive Plan land use, staff required the applicant to submit a traffic impact study to analyze the expected traffic impacts of the proposed project.

13 The consultant who prepared the study followed a scope of work established by staff and used the Overland Park Traffic Model to analyze 2040 traffic conditions. This traffic study did review REZ , SUP and REZ together. Therefore, this report covers both areas at one time and is identical between the staff reports. Table I includes a comparison between the trips that are expected to be generated by the proposed development and the trips that would occur if the current approved plan shown in the Comprehensive Plan for this site were to be developed. Table 1 Trip Generation Proposed Development ITE verage.m. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Intensity Code Weekday Total In Out Total In Out Northern Portion partments 335 du 220 2, Subtotal Northern rea Trips 2, Southern Portion partments 1,382 du 220 8, Senior dult Housing 140 du Shopping Center 39,860 sf 820 3, General Office uilding 600,000 sf 710 5, Subtotal Southern rea Trips 17,787 1, , ,078 Total Development Trips 19,941 1, , ,149 Trip Generation pproved Land Uses ITE verage.m. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Intensity Code Weekday Total In Out Total In Out Hotel 450 R m 310 3, Shopping Center 400,00 0 sf , , General Office uilding 1.6M sf ,798 1,758 1, , ,552 Total pproved Development Trips 31,174 2,360 1, ,657 1,184 2,473

14 review of Table I show that the proposed project will result in a significant trip generation decrease. The project will result in a 43 percent decrease in trip generation from the site on a daily basis (13,387 trips), a 32 percent decrease in the a.m. peak hour (760 trips) and a 48 percent decrease in the p.m. peak hour time period (1770 trips). Historically, the City has focused on the p.m. peak hour as the critical time period in analyzing traffic impacts because that is when the street network carries its highest load. Tables II, III, and IV contain the expected intersection Level of Service (LOS) for the intersections that were analyzed for the project under three development scenarios - existing conditions, existing plus development conditions, and 2040 conditions with the development of the proposed project.

15 Intersection College lvd. and Nieman Road Table II Intersection Operational nalysis Existing Conditions College lvd. and 109th Street Eastbound Left-Turn Southbound Left-Turn Southbound Right-Turn P.M. Peak Hour Movement LOS 1 Delay 2 Traffic Signal 14.1 C F 18.0 > College lvd. and Switzer Road Northbound Right-Turn C 12.3 College lvd. and US-69 S Ramps Traffic Signal C 20.2 College lvd. and US-69 N Ramps Traffic Signal 11.1 College lvd. and Mastin Street Traffic Signal C 32.1 Nieman Road and 113th Street 119th Street and Switzer Road Northbound Eastbound 119th Street and Indian Creek Parkway Eastbound Left-Turn Southbound Left-Turn Southbound Right-Turn 1 Level of Service 2 Delay in seconds per vehicle Traffic Signal C 31.1 C F C 15.5 > Table II indicates that most intersections in the vicinity of the current project have acceptable operating characteristics other than a couple of individual left-turn movements at unsignalized intersections.

16 Table III Intersection Operational nalysis Existing plus Development Conditions Intersection P.M. Peak Hour Movement LOS 1 Delay 2 College lvd. and Nieman Road Traffic Signal C 20.8 College lvd. and Drive Northbound Right-Turn 9.6 College lvd. and 109th Street/Switzer Road Traffic Signal C 22.2 College lvd. and US-69 S Ramps Traffic Signal C 33.8 College lvd. and US-69 N Ramps Traffic Signal D 47.8 College lvd. and Mastin Street Traffic Signal C 31.1 Nieman Road and 113th Street Northbound Left-Turn Southbound Left-Turn Eastbound Westbound C Nieman Road and Drive 113th Street and Drive C 113th Street and Drive 113th Street and Drive D Switzer Road and Drive E Southbound Westbound Southbound Eastbound Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Left-Turn Eastbound Right-Turn Westbound Right-Turn C

17 Switzer Road and 113th Street Roundabout Northbound pproach Roundabout Southbound pproach Roundabout Eastbound pproach Roundabout Westbound pproach Switzer Road and Drive F Northbound Left-Turn Northbound Shared Right-Turn/Through Southbound Left-Turn Southbound Shared Right-Turn/Through Eastbound Left-Turn Westbound Left-Turn Switzer Road and Drive G Northbound Right-Turn Southbound Right-Turn Switzer Road and Drive H Northbound Left-Turn Northbound Shared Right-Turn/Through Southbound Left-Turn Southbound Shared Right-Turn/Through Eastbound Left-Turn Westbound Left-Turn Switzer Road and Drive I Northbound Left-Turn Eastbound Left-Turn Eastbound Right-Turn Switzer Road and Indian Creek Parkway Roundabout Northbound pproach Roundabout Southbound pproach Roundabout Eastbound pproach 119th Street and Switzer Road 119th Street and Indian Creek Parkway Eastbound Left-Turn Southbound Left-Turn Southbound Right-Turn 1 Level of Service 2 Delay in seconds per vehicle C D C D C Traffic Signal D 35.5 C F C 19.1 >

18 The consultant evaluated all of the identified locations in the traffic study to determine what improvements would be needed to achieve an acceptable level of service. Recommended improvements included adding a traffic signal at College oulevard and Switzer Road/109 th Street and constructing dual left-turn lanes for westbound traffic at this new signal. Other off-site improvements recommended including restriping southbound Nieman Road such that the inside lane becomes a left-turn only lane at 113 th Street while the outside lane becomes the through lane. ll other improvements were related to the site development and construction of new streets. Table III indicates that the on-site and off-site intersections studied will all operate at acceptable levels of service with the existing traffic and that generated by the proposed development, other than an unsignalized left-turn movement at 119 th Street and Indian Creek Parkway (ICP) which is currently operating at a substandard LOS F. Site development traffic at 119 th Street and ICP will not be contributing further to the critical southbound left-turn movement at this intersection. The developer has proposed a new traffic signal at Switzer Road and College oulevard, and it is anticipated to operate at LOS C while the existing signal at College oulevard and Nieman Road will operate at LOS under either scenario. The cost of the new signal at Switzer Road and College oulevard will be determined by the developer s agreement between the developer and the City. s part of the development, the consultant also studied an alternative cross-section to the City s standard four-lane divided thoroughfare design (which would be typical for Switzer Road). ased on the expected traffic volumes in the near-term and 2040, staff supports the conclusion that a two lane arterial with right-turn lanes and left-turn lanes will handle traffic adequately. It should be noted that this modified cross-section is dependent on two roundabouts being included, one at the main office complex access on the north end of the site and a second roundabout located at the future intersection of Indian Creek Parkway at the south end of the development. The southern roundabout will help to provide a safe reduction in the traffic speeds on northbound Switzer Road.

19 The southern roundabout will serve as a point of connection to Indian Creek Parkway (ICP), which currently ends a short distance west of Switzer Road. Indian Creek Parkway is designated as a collector street and is designed to collect traffic from the neighborhood and surrounding streets and distribute it to the thoroughfare system. With this connection, the traffic volumes on ICP will still be fairly small as there is another connection at the west end (closer to Nieman Road) that still must be constructed. Initial traffic volumes on ICP in the vicinity of Switzer Road with the proposed development will be less than 1,000 vehicles per day. Connecting this small segment of ICP near Switzer Road will allow better access to nearby residents and provide another relief route for traffic on nearby Nieman Road. This is particularly important for the unsignalized left-turn movement at 119 th Street and ICP. y adding the connection near the site development, residents will be able to use Switzer Road to access 119 th Street at an existing traffic signal which currently operates at an acceptable level of service in the peak hour. This should relieve some of the existing demand at 119 th Street and ICP.

20 Table IV Intersection Operational nalysis Future Year (2040) Conditions with Proposed Development Intersection P.M. Peak Hour Movement LOS 1 Delay 2 College lvd. and Nieman Road Traffic Signal 18.0 College lvd. and Drive Northbound Right-Turn 9.4 College lvd. and 109th Street/Switzer Road Traffic Signal C 19.3 College lvd. and US-69 Ramps Traffic Signal C 25.9 College lvd. and Mastin Street Traffic Signal C 27.8 Nieman Road and 113th Street Northbound Left-Turn Southbound Left-Turn Eastbound Westbound Nieman Road and Drive Southbound Westbound 113th Street and Drive C Southbound Eastbound 113th Street and Drive Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 113th Street and Drive D Eastbound Southbound Switzer Road and Drive E Northbound Left-Turn Eastbound Right-Turn Westbound Right-Turn Switzer Road and 113th Street Roundabout Northbound pproach Roundabout Southbound pproach Roundabout Eastbound pproach Roundabout Westbound pproach C C C

21 Switzer Road and Drive F Northbound Left-Turn Northbound Shared Right-Turn/Through Southbound Left-Turn Southbound Shared Right-Turn/Through Eastbound Left-Turn Westbound Left-Turn E C Switzer Road and Drive G Northbound Right-Turn Southbound Right-Turn Switzer Road and Drive H Northbound Left-Turn Northbound Shared Right-Turn/Through Southbound Left-Turn Southbound Shared Right-Turn/Through Eastbound Left-Turn Westbound Left-Turn F C Switzer Road and Drive I Northbound Left-Turn Eastbound Left-Turn Eastbound Right-Turn C Switzer Road and Indian Creek Parkway Roundabout Northbound pproach Roundabout Southbound pproach Roundabout Eastbound pproach th Street and Switzer Road Traffic Signal D th Street and Indian Creek Parkway Eastbound Left-Turn Southbound Left-Turn Southbound Right-Turn E F F 36.1 > Level of Service 2 Delay in seconds per vehicle The results in Table IV show that under the 2040 scenario, this proposed project will have a relatively minor impact on the level of delay at all of the intersections studied. Eventually a traffic signal will be needed at 119 th Street and Indian Creek Parkway, but this is more tied to overall traffic growth along the 119 th Street corridor as opposed to this specific development. In addition, right-turn lanes may be needed ultimately at 119 th Street and Switzer Road to improve the level of service at that location (northbound, southbound and eastbound).

22 s part of the overall development project, but separate from this application, a 335 dwelling unit apartment complex is also being proposed north of College oulevard and east of Nieman Road (adjacent to the Interstate 435 corridor). The traffic generation for this apartment complex is included in the analyses for the proposed project south of College oulevard (see Table I). It is expected that 2,154 trips per day will be generated, resulting in 168 a.m. trips and 202 p.m. trips. Nieman Road currently carries approximately 1,400 vehicles per day so the additional trips will still be well within normal traffic flows that occur on other City collector streets. The proposed apartments will be served by Nieman Road (a collector) directly to College oulevard and by 109 th Street (also a collector) indirectly to College oulevard. The intersection of College oulevard and Nieman Road is already signalized and the intersection of 109 th Street/Switzer Road and College oulevard is proposed to be signalized with the construction of Switzer Road to the south. The consultant s analysis showed that both locations would operate at very acceptable levels of service with the addition of traffic from both development sites. The fire department will also require a second point of access for emergency needs to the apartments in addition to the proposed access off of Nieman Road. The developer has proposed an emergency access point which will utilize a 12-foot paved trail system connecting the east side of the apartments to the area near 108 th Terrace and Larsen Street. The proposed site plans for both the northern (apartments) and southern (apartments, mixed use and offices) will provide for good internal traffic circulation. Considering the traffic impacts associated with this project, especially compared to the currently approved plan from 1986, and generally acceptable site design, the transportation staff does not object to this application. c. ENVIRONMENTL IMPCTS: Preliminary Stormwater Management Study, Flood Study, and Geomorphologic Study have been submitted and reviewed for the proposed development.

23 Site History and Description previous rezoning plan for the.f. Saul site was approved in This plan included office and condominiums. The site was then rezoned again in 1984 and This plan included retail/office on the southern parcel and single-family residential on the northern parcel. Each plan pre-dated the stream corridor ordinance that was adopted in Right-of-way for Switzer Road was previously dedicated in 1982 for the connection to College oulevard. ecause the property is being rezoned with this application, conformance with the City s stream corridor and stormwater treatment ordinances is now required. The site contains a farm pond that was built in the channel between 1941 and Looking at historical aerials, it appears the land has been used for agricultural purposes to date. The pond was then breached sometime between 1983 and Despite channel modifications that were made over the years, historical aerials have indicated the channel has remained relatively stable during this seventy-two (72) year time span and is evidenced by the existing mature tree line. The overall site is divided into three major drainage areas. pproximately 21 acres drains to the northeast corner of the site to a three-foot by three-foot box culvert under College oulevard and eventually drains to North ranch Indian Creek. pproximately 63 acres drains through an existing stream corridor located along the southern portion of the property, into a box culvert located under U.S. 69 Highway, and ultimately into the main channel of Indian Creek. pproximately 8 acres in the southeast corner of the site drains directly into Indian Creek. The final drainage patterns for the proposed development are similar to existing drainage patterns; however, there is a small decrease in the amount of run-off draining to the northeast corner of the site. The applicant s engineer has evaluated the impact of routing the small drainage area to the box culvert under U.S. 69Highway, and has determined that this will not have a negative impact. In addition, the internal stream corridor is proposed to be relocated to the southern boundary of the property. ll significant engineering issues associated with this site are outlined below.

24 Stream Corridor The applicant has submitted a stream corridor deviation request (ttachment ) in accordance with Section and C. The deviation is required in order to relocate the stream and construct a bioengineered channel in a new location. Staff is supportive of the deviation request because the proposed development plan provides a stream corridor that meets or exceeds what is required by ordinance. In addition, a stable stream can be constructed within the provided corridor. The applicant has provided a minimum one-hundred and sixty (160) foot stream corridor. The proposed width provides more than the required sixty (60) foot setback on either side of the channel while also providing room to construct a stable channel. The applicant has submitted a geomorphologic study to support the relocation of the stream. There are still outstanding questions related to the design of the channel; however, the engineering staff feels that the stream corridor width provided is sufficient to allow the stream to meander over time without creating future erosion issues. s such, staff is comfortable with allowing this application to go forward without further analysis at this time. stipulation has been recommended that will require a third party peer review of the relocated stream design prior to construction plan approval. dditionally, staff has recommended stipulations that require annual maintenance inspections for an initial three-year establishment period following construction, and every two years thereafter. The additional maintenance inspections are proposed to help ensure the relocated stream is functioning properly and requires any issues to be resolved promptly. Detention There is a building located downstream of the northeast subwatershed that floods during the 100-year storm; therefore, detention is required. There are no downstream issues related to the other two sub-watersheds. In lieu of providing detention for the northeast watershed, the applicant is proposing to route approximately 12 acres to the southern watershed. dual purpose extended wet detention pond

25 is proposed that will satisfy the City s requirements for both flood control and stormwater treatment. The decrease in acreage in the northeast sub-watershed will reduce post-development peak run-off rates to less than pre-development rates. The detention basin in the southern watershed will ensure that the box culvert crossing under U.S. 69 Highway has the capacity to handle the postdevelopment peak run-off rate without creating flooding issues for downstream properties. Stormwater Treatment Stormwater treatment facilities are required to be provided because the site is being rezoned. The stormwater treatment mitigation plan includes a combination of extended wet detention ponds, stream corridor restoration, and catch basin inserts to meet site requirements. phasing plan will be required to be submitted with the Final Stormwater Management Study that outlines which stormwater treatment facilities will be built with each phase of construction. Corps of Engineers The proposed stream relocation requires an Individual 404 Permit from the Corps of Engineers (COE) because site grading and land disturbance activities are proposed within Jurisdictional Waters of the United States. n Individual 404 Permit is required when a project has more than minimal impact to waters of the United States. This type of permit requires a comment period for the public and other State and Federal agencies. Staff has received correspondence from the COE indicating that the public comment period started on November 1 st, and concluded on December 1 st. t this time, staff has no indication as to whether the proposed stream relocation/wetland mitigation plan is acceptable; however, correspondence from the COE will be required to be submitted prior to the approval of the final development plan. If the Individual 404 Permit requires revisions to the plan, the applicant will be required to submit a revised preliminary development plan that incorporates any design changes.

26 Floodplain The majority of this property lies outside of the FEM regulated floodplain; however, there is a small portion of floodplain in the vicinity of the existing Switzer Road bridge. The proposed plan will require minimal grading in the vicinity of the existing Switzer Road bridge for the new Switzer Road connection. The applicant s engineer has completed a flood study to determine the impact of grading in this area. The flood study indicates that all grading will occur in the ineffective flow areas located upstream of the Switzer Road bridge, and the proposed work has no impact on the 100-year water surface elevations. d. SITE PLN REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) reviewed this proposal at two separate meetings. During the first SPRC meeting, the committee asked about several aspects of the project. These included the three buildings as part of Parcel VII not meeting the intent of the MXD, density along the southern property line adjacent to Parcels II and IV, a large parking expanse between buildings on Parcels II and IV, the plan for the CP-O portion, and trying to integrate the uses of the site better. t the second meeting the applicant brought back an updated plan. The major change in this plan was moving uilding 3 of Parcel II and uilding 4 of Parcel IV closer together. This reduced the large area of the parking field. No other changes were provided on the resubmittal. The SPRC did discuss integrating the site better as was discussed at the first meeting. In addition to this discussion, the SPRC thoroughly discussed the relocation of the stream corridor. However, the SPRC did not take a formal vote on the request but did not ask for any additional changes either. The SPRC will review this meeting a third time on January 8 th. The SPRC will be required to vote on the proposed density bonuses and the revised layout for this southern rezoning and special use permit request. Staff and the SPRC will provide a verbal update to the Planning Commission.

27 9. CONFORMNCE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLN: a. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLN MP: The Future Development Plan identifies this area as appropriate for Commercial, Office and Parks and Recreation uses. This request is for mixed use, offices and high density residential. The request for mixed use and offices are located in areas identified for office and retail uses therefore, those two requests meet the Future Development Plan Map. However, the request for rezoning to the RP-6 district and a density of 29.9 units per acre does not conform to the Future Development Plan, which identifies this area for parks and open space. s stated previously, with the increased buffer and the better transition and internal streetscape along 113 th Street, staff supports the request. b. GOLS ND POLICIES: The staff reviewed this request against the medium- and higher-density Residential Land Use Goals. The applicant has worked with the staff to address several of these goals and polices, such as transition and buffer from single-family homes. Policy 1.2: Preserve and Protect the Environment - Encourage the preservation and protection of trees, natural vegetation, wetlands, stream corridors, and environmentally sensitive areas in medium- and higher-density residential developments to serve as site amenities. Policy 1.5: Provide Open Space - Encourage the purposeful integration of common open space on site by clustering buildings to minimize the creation of narrow strips of unusable open space in front of and between buildings. Policy 1.8: Consider ppropriate Density - The number of dwelling units per acre in any residential category should be viewed as representing a density range rather than a maximum allowable density. The exact density of a specific tract is to be determined at the time of rezoning based on the following: