Memorandum

To:              City Commission

From:          Linda M. Finger, Planning Director

Date:                   September 16, 2004

Subject:     Sections of Draft Zoning Code to Return to Planning Commission for Additional Consideration

Since review, revision, and recommendation by the Planning Commission in February 2004, staff has worked on the implementation plan for the zoning regulations in the new Development Code, including revisions necessary to the Zoning Map, in preparation for adoption of new zoning regulations.  [Attached is a summary of the Planning Commission’s actions on initiation of zoning map revisions.]

Two weeks ago, the Commission received a draft agreement pertaining to land use regulation and review procedures for development on the primary University of Kansas campus.  This document was the result of discussions initiated by a task force created by the Mayor and KU Chancellor to discuss the proposed “U” district zoning designation and regulations in the draft Development Code.  The intent of this agreement is to provide a mechanism for achieving some of the land use controls and reviews proposed in the new U (University) District, including designation of a buffer area for cooperative review of development proposals.  This agreement was referred to the Planning Commission for consideration of it and other revisions to the draft Code before the City Commission places the Development Code on the City Commission agenda for approval and adoption.

As staff has worked with and reviewed the new Development Code in preparation for its adoption and implementation, errors, omissions, and inaccuracies have been discovered.  Some are minor and are covered on in an errors and omissions table.  Eleven are of the level of change to be significant and in need of additional review and discussion by the Planning Commission.  Several of these are the result of the proposed KU/City agreement and pertain to either the U (University) District or the Institutional Master Plan requirement associated with the U, H, and GPI districts.  Another is based on the current work by a Planning Commission sub-committee on new commercial design standards and staff’s believe that not adopting conflicting regulations at this time would be in the best interest of the general public.  Design standards for General Retail development are being developed by the CPC committee, who is close to finalizing its recommendations.  The code issues staff would like the City Commission to return to the Planning Commission for reconsideration are:

1. Revisions to the ‘U’ District.  If the City/KU agreement is adopted, there is a need to create separate U districts for KU and HINU.  Staff’s opinion is that the U district should be divided into two distinct districts: one would reference the KU/City agreement and would cover the primary campus boundaries identified on the map submitted as part of that agreement.  The other U District would apply to the HINU campus.  Modifications to the U District include simplifying the master planning process and the phased expansion planning process currently referred to in the new code as the Compatibility Buffer Area Site Plan.

Recommendation: Revise the U District to create two distinct zoning districts, one for each University.  This would include revisions to section 20-201, 218 and other related sections.

2. Revise the Institutional Master Plan requirements.  Working with implementation of this process, it has become apparent that the Institutional Master Plan requirements, as applied to properties in the GPI (General Public and Institutional) and the H (Hospital) Districts, primarily public lands and master plans for these areas, are already developed.  Recognition of this factor in the Development Code will make implementation of this process less onerous.

Recommendation: Revise sections 20-201, 20-217, 20-218, 20-1307 and other related sections.

3. Site Plan Appeal procedure.  After implementation reviews and trial runs, the proposed appeals process makes approval of site plans a moving target, nearly doubling the current timeframe for review and adoption.  As one goal of the new regulations was to streamline and reduce “red tape,” this section is in need of simplification.  Keeping the process as one that involves only one Commission, the City Commission, seems reasonable, as it is consistent with current practices. 

Recommendation: Revise section 20-1305, pertaining to site plan appeals process.

4. Design Standards for Retail Establishments.  The design standards in the development code were not heartily supported by the Planning Commission and were basically left in the Code as  “placeholders” for the work the Commercial Design Standards Committee of the Planning Commission set out to accomplish.  The CPC is nearly completed with their work.  Rather than adopt and then immediately change design standards for retail establishments, staff’s opinion is that the design standards in the draft code should be removed and the section reserved for adoption of new design standards currently under development by the CPC. 

Recommendation: Delete standards in section 20-501 (aa) and reserve section for commercial design standards recommendation from Planning Commission.

5. Registration of Non-Conforming Uses.  The language of the code is overly broad as written, in staff’s opinion, and was only intended to apply to uses that are non-conforming, not to all nonconformities, because this would include a significant number of lots in Lawrence that were platted as smaller lots than are currently permitted in the RS-2 zoning district.

Recommendation: Revise section 20-1506 and subsections under that section.

6. Religious Assembly standards.  Upon further review, the seating limits set for neighborhood churches is set too low at 250 and would result in the creation of a significant number of non-conforming churches.  Based on a review of the fire department’s occupancy records, the standard for neighborhood churches should be set higher.

Recommendation:  Revise Section 20-501 (v) and 20-1701 (ww).

7. Timing of special studies in review and approval process.  1) Retail Market Study – intended in the comprehensive plan to be required with significant commercial retail development, the requirement as written does not apply to existing zoned but undeveloped tracts of land.  Staff believes this was an oversight.  Recommendation:  Add the requirement of a retail market study to the site planning requirements for CC zoned properties if a study was not performed at the time of zoning or if land uses have changed since a retail market study was done.  [Section 20-1305]

2) Traffic Impact Studies – This is in the Code as a requirement for properties being site planned.  It was inadvertently omitted as a requirement for Planned Development projects. 

Recommendation:  Add this requirement, by reference, to the Preliminary Development Plan process.  [Section 20-1304]

8. Accessory Uses to Hotel thresholds:  Further review of the existing motel and hotels and their existing accessory uses such as bars, restaurants and nightclubs, show the minimum number of rooms required to have such accessory uses is set too high and would make most hotels and motels non-conforming as to their current accessory uses.  Discussion of existing hotels with the Director of Tourism supports staff’s finding that the minimum number of rooms needs to be revised downward.

Recommendation:  Revised section 20-501(i)

9. Telecommunications review fee requirement.  The draft regulations set an additional deposit review fee of $20,000 for each application for a new telecommunication facility.  Staff has had the intervening months to review other communities codes in the region and it is our determination that this fee is uncharacteristic of any requirement in cities in our region.  A more reasonable requirement would be the deposit of an amount determined by the city to hire an independent consultant to analyze the proposed tower location and determine if co-location were feasible on any existing towers that would meet the service needs of the applicant.  Staff believes this is consistent with the original intent of code but is more flexible to permit adjustments based on actual costs. 

Recommendation: Revise the review fee required in section 20-501 (dd)(6).

10. Home Occupation, type 2, and registration requirements.  The renewal process is overly complicated, labor intensive for the owner, and an unnecessary administrative burden for staff.  In staff’s opinion, the accessory dwelling unit registration process is simple and effective and would work in this case just as well.

Recommendation: Revise section 20-502 to require the same registration process as if required for accessory dwelling units on RS lots.

11. Site plan required with submittal for Special Use approvals.  The intent was not to delete the site plan required as part of the Special Use permit application, however, the code inadvertently omits this requirement.

Recommendation: Revise section 20-1306 to require filing of a plan that meets the requirements in 1305 (site plan) with the Special Use application.

Another revision in the form of additions to the development code since the Planning Commission acted on the document is illustrations.  In February, the development code was forwarded to the City Commission with a list of additional illustrations staff and the Planning Commission believed were necessary or would be helpful to illustrate sections of the Code.  These illustrations have now been added to the code.  Some are in not quite right and are in need of revision.  Review by the Planning Commission of the illustrations would also be appropriate if the document is returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the specific code revisions noted above.

In the course of editing, formatting, and developing a handbook for the public’s use in following the development process established by the new development code, errors, omissions, and inaccuracies have been identified and corrected.  These appear on an Errors and Omissions list that will be submitted to the Planning Commission with the above sections if they are referred back to the Commission for additional consideration.

Recommended Action:  Refer back to the Planning Commission the new development code for consideration of the ten specific areas of revision noted above.  These will be considered at the November 17 meeting, which is the same date the KU/City Agreement was referred to the Planning Commission for discussion and recommendation.