April 10, 2002

 

 

Mr. Jack M. Epps, Esq.

do Bryan Cave LLP

7500 College Blvd., Suite 1100

Overland Park, KS 66210

 

RE:  Preliminary Development Plan and Narrative Review- Blue Valley Plaza Retail Shopping Center (OX-PRB3-2284 and OX-PDP-2285)

 

Dear Mr. Epps:

 

This letter provides preliminary staff comments and questions from the Johnson County Planning Department regarding the above-noted submittal. Further comments may follow upon resubmitting the plans, narrative and other documentation. Please note that per Andy Schlagle’s phone call on Thursday, April 4th, we have postponed consideration of this item at the April 18th Oxford Township Zoning Board meeting agenda due to the ongoing process of revising your request to meet the technical aspects of the zoning regulations.

 

I.      Required Drawings/Studies:

A.   A traffic study shall be completed and submitted by the applicant in accordance with the scope of work attached hereto.

B.    The County, at the applicant’s expense, will obtain a traffic consultant to review the traffic study.

C.    A noise study will be provided at the applicant’s expense showing the impact that noise from the loading/unloading area will have on the adjacent neighborhood to the east. The aspects of the study should include noise from the semi-trucks, worker activity, any public announcement/speaker system, etc.

D.   Provide a description of the truck activity. What size? What kind of trucks? How many? Will refrigerator units be loading/unloading here? How will the effects of lights, noise, odor, idling of trucks, aesthetics, etc. be mitigated to the neighbors to the east?

E.    How many docks will be located at the unloading area proposed on the east side of the property. How will they be configured? What are the hours of activity of these facilities?

F.    Provide cross section drawings of the site as noted on the attached redlined site plan. Be sure to include all property included on the redlined drawing.

G.    Provide a separate phasing plan showing how the construction of buildings relates to the construction of the interior drives and parking network.

H.   Provide a copy of your application for a Corps of Engineers 404 Permit and the prognosis of the outcome of the 404 Permit.

 

Page 1 of 5

4.    You mention on page 5 that the preliminary landscape plan depicts a plan appropriate for this phase of approval. Will there be a more detailed plan forthcoming?

 

E.     Additional Information

1.    You mention that the landscaping will be over and above what is typically required in terms of quantity and size of plantings. However, the landscape plan depicts proposed trees as 2 1/2 inch caliper and 5 ft.-6 ft. tall. This is not any greater in size than what is typically required of new developments in the County. Will a revised landscape plan depict a greater size than what is currently shown? Also, landscaping around the buildings is either inadequate or completely lacking.

2.    Discuss the environmental implications of site runoff at the discharge point and on any existing downstream water features such as ponds, streams, etc. Please consider the use of an oil/water separator for the parking lot runoff as it exits the property.

 

III.   Site Plan Comments

 

A.    Elevation Drawings

1.    The building elevation drawing depicts a height of over 40 ft. The PRB-3 zoning limits height to a maximum of 30 ft. unless approved with a Conditional Use Permit. Please either redesign the building to reduce height or formally apply for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the proposed building height.

2.    Provide dimensioned elevations and label specific materials proposed for the building facades.

3.    The shading and shadowing and other effects on the building elevations appear to indicate variations in building facades, canopies, wall mass, heights, etc. that are not reflected by the building footprint on the site plan. Provide section details that better represent the intent of the design for the buildings.

 

B.    Preliminary Site Plan

1.    On the attribute table, include a column for ‘use” and “maximum height”.

2.    Calculate total number of handicapped accessible parking spaces required by County Codes. Include this total on the attribute table, show spaces on site plan and adjust the number of total parking spaces based on handicapped accessible spaces.

3.    Is the parking to the north of Building B adequate for this building?

4.    Include “sq. ft.” in Parking Ratio column.

5.    Provide a utility table as noted on the redlined site plan.

6.    Better delineate proposed property lines adjacent to rights-of-way.

7.    Are the off-site street improvements depicted on the plan the actual improvements proposed for this development? If not, show what off-site street improvements are proposed.

8.    Identify all retaining walls and label proposed wall materials and wall heights.

9.    Is the traffic aisle in front of Buildings A and B wide enough for fire lanes? If not, will this affect the total number of parking spaces?

10.  Show pad site loading/unloading areas and demonstrate where/how trucks will be parked when unloading at the pad sites.

11.  Show location of dumpsters for each building and pad site.

12.    Good design suggests that drive-thorough facilities should not be located on corner lots. Would Building F work better if it were turned 180o? Are the headlights from autos stacked in the drive-through going to be problematic for traffic on Metcalf Avenue?

13.    As noted above, provide cross sections as noted on the redlined site plan.

14.    Correct minor edits as shown on the redlined site plan.

 

C.    Preliminary Grading Plan

1.      Public Works comments will forthcoming on the grading plans.

 

D.    Preliminary Landscape Plan

1.      Calculate the landscape parking area in table form as required in Article 16, Section

3.B.1    of the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations.

2.      Why are the trees graphically shown as different sizes when the key notes only one tree size?

3.      Include landscaping as shown on the redlined site plan. Landscaping in parking islands is required on an average of every 20 parking spaces.

4.      The landscape plan should be overlaid onto the proposed grading plan to reflect the end result of the plan and to see the relationship between the grading and the landscaping.

5.      A larger, taller and wider berm with heavy landscaping should be provided along the east and south property lines.

 

IV. Public Works Comments

 

This is a large project with significant traffic issues. Public Works will make partial

comments at this time and will make final comments after review of the traffic study.

Several of these comments are similar to comments previously made by the Planning Department.

 

A.    The current plan shows two entrance locations along Metcalf and three along 159th Street. The applicant made no attempt to meet corner clearance and driveway spacing criteria. No requests or justifications were provided for rule exceptions.

B.    A traffic study is required for the development and the surrounding areas. This study could possibly change the proposed location of the entrances.

C.    Just to the south of the development is 161St Street. If a future signal was needed along Metcalf, then 1615t Street would be a good location for the signal. Possibly this development could modify access to align with 16lSt Street.

D.    The number of lanes at the entrance locations could change depending on the results of the traffic study.

E.     Some of the entrances could be limited to right in/right out or allowed with the understanding that they might be limited to right in/right out in the future.

F.     Development such as these typically generate enough traffic that signalized intersection will be required. The roadways in this area probably will be 4-lane divided arterials in the near future. Consequently, the main entrances along Metcalf and l59th St. should be at locations that will accommodate future roadways in the area.

G.    Will the internal streets become county streets after completion?

H.    Are individual lots to be sold in the future? If so, then access control for these parcels becomes an issue.

I.     Additional, more standard comments will be made when Public Works submits its final comments.

 

The above comments represent issues/questions staff has based on your initial application. These comments/questions are an attempt to obtain more information on your project in order to complete our review. These comments and questions in no way represent a position of this department on the outcome of your request. However, staff wishes to remind the applicant that the Blue Valley Area Plan (Plan), a sub-area plan of the Rural Comprehensive Plan, A Plan for the Unincorporated Area of Johnson County, designates this property as a “Transition Zone”. The Plan states, “Generally, the Transition Areas should be regarded as areas that might someday develop for residential uses at urban densities with sanitary sewers. In the interim, the areas might be partially developed with residential uses not served by sanitary sewers, but any such development should be carefully guided to not unreasonably obstruct urban-density residential uses in the future.”

 

Given the quantity and type of information requested, I encourage you to meet with Planning and Public Works staff prior to any resubmittal. Resubmittal should be received by April 26th in order to stay on schedule for the May 16, 2002 Oxford Township Zoning Board meeting.

 

If you have any questions or comments regarding the above please let me know. Sincerely.

 

 

Paul Greeley, AICP

Zoning Administrator

 

 

Attachment:          Scope of Work and Redlined Drawings

 

 

cc:           Roger Kroh, Director of Planning and Development

                Norm Bowers, County Engineer