ITEM NO. 17: TEXT AMENDMENT TO HORIZON 2020 TO AMEND MAJOR THOROUGHFARES MAPS (BA)
CPA-2004-01: Amend Comprehensive Plan (Horizon 2020) to amend the Major Thoroughfares Maps to show an east-west collector along the general alignment of the extension of Peterson Road west to George Williams Way and to remove an incorrect section of Franklin Road from 31st Street to the SLT from the Major Thoroughfares Maps. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their June meeting.
ITEM NO. 18: TEXT AMENDMENT TO TRANSPORTATION 2025 TO AMEND ROADWAY SYSTEM PLAN AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARES MAPS (BA)
Amend Transportation 2025 (T2025) – Roadway System Plan and Major Thoroughfares Maps (Figures 6.8 & 6.9) to show an east-west collector along the general alignment of the extension of Peterson Road west to George Williams Way and to remove an incorrect section from the Major Thoroughfares Maps, deleting Franklin Road from 31st St. to SLT. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their June meeting.
Items 17 & 18 were discussed simultaneously
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens explained the intent of the text amendment was to:
1. Create a new east-west collector along an extension of Peterson Road to George Williams Way to relieve traffic congestion on W. 6th Street.
2. Correct an error showing Franklin Road extended between 31st Street and the SLT
Staff responded to Planning Commission direction in 2003 by creating options for a new east-west connection between Folks Road & Wakarusa Drive. The Commission discussed these options but took no action at that time. In July 2004, the Commission resumed discussion and chose one of these options, directing Staff to develop language for a text amendment to HORIZON 2020 and Transportation 2025 to show Peterson Road (extended) as the anticipated east-west connection. The Commission’s decision took into consideration information gathered by Staff about general construction costs and the impact of each proposed alignment on its surrounding area.
Discussions in 2003 resulted in elimination of one of the options because it ran through a conservation easement and would require court action for any kind of development or improvement on that property. An alternate route for a Peterson Road extension was proposed to run just south of the conservation easement, along the line between the easement and city park property. After review of all options, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) chose to recommend the new Peterson Road alignment as presented in the text amendment being considered tonight.
Staff was asked to address the suggestion that a combination of routes would provide the best relief for W. 6th Street. Mr. Ahrens responded that Staff had not been directed to consider a combination of routes, so additional analysis would be needed to make a recommendation on this suggestion.
Estimated constructions costs for each alignment were as follows:
Martin Park Road – $10.6 million
Stetson Drive – $4.7 million
Peterson Road – $8.5 million
Comm. Krebs asked why TAC recommended removing the section of Franklin Road as proposed. Mr. Ahrens said this section was placed on the Major Thoroughfares Map as a connection to the SLT based on early KDOT considerations. Based on the approved environmental impact statement, TAC later recommended this connection be removed, but suggested this wait until land uses and arterial alignments were determined by adoption of the Southeast Area Plan.
Staff responded to several questions from the Commission:
· This is the first time, to Staff’s knowledge, that Peterson Road was proposed as a major thoroughfare to the west.
· Staff has not been directed to attempt to assess the environmental impact of extending Martin Park Road west to Queen’s Road, nor Peterson Road west to Folks Road.
· All three options currently proposed will cut through challenging terrain and some floodplain. Without detailed engineering, construction costs are quite elementary.
· The city would have to hire a consultant to obtain the detailed construction costs and environmental impact information being discussed.
· The Northwest Area Plan anticipated minimal development of the two parcels west of Martin Park Road and found the road system adequate to handle the recommended development density.
PUBLIC HEARING
Alex Anderson, member of Boy Scout Troop 59, explained he had designed, built and mapped a series of walking trails through the conservation easement in order to get his Eagle Scout Badge. This project was approved by the parties involved in the conservation agreement (Kansas Land Trust, Parks & Recreation, previous land owners). Mr. Anderson was concerned that the Peterson Road option would cut off the main entrance to his trail system and would have significant negative impacts on the environment, wildlife and vegetation of the conservation area.
Arthur Anderson, Alex’s father, noted the rough terrain and topographical challenges facing construction in this area. He encouraged the Commission to consider the less expensive route along Martin Park Road, which would also provide needed access to the high school. Mr. Anderson also thought this option would provide a scenic road and would have less impact (noise) since it was close to the turnpike.
Mr. Anderson agreed with Chairman Haase’s suggestion that an east-west arterial was needed and the environmental impact of any alignment would be significant, but that an arterial through the Baldwin Creek Area would be “disastrous”.
Alice Ann Johnson, Chair of the Advisory Board for Lawrence Parks & Recreation, referenced the Board’s letter sent to the Commission. The Board was pleased the city was being proactive in acquiring parkland for passive and active use in advance of development.
Ms. Johnson said the Board had voted to oppose the alignment proposed by this text amendment, but would support either of the other options. She responded to questioning that the Board did not look at environmental impacts on the Baldwin Creek area. She agreed with Chairman Haase’s suggestion that this would be valuable information to have to make an comparable assessment of environmental impacts.
Fred DeVictor, Director of Parks & Recreation, said the City Commission followed the Urban Growth Plan in acquiring parkland for the future. Land choices were “not made in a vacuum” and parkland was being considered in this area as early as 1992. The Parks Department had recommended easements be obtained with the Bauer Brook plat, but this was not done. Comm. Angino asked if the Planning Commission was involved in the decision to acquire parklands. Mr. DeVictor said many city departments were involved, including the Planning Department, but the Planning Commission was not part of the review process.
Mr. DeVictor responded to questioning that he was not prepared to estimate how much it would cost to perform the environmental impact studies being discussed without more information on the scope of those studies.
Bob Lichtwardt , previous property owner of the land now dedicated as a conservation easement, reiterated the challenges facing any kind of development in the conservation area. When he and his wife donated the land to the city for conservation they recognized how fragile the terrain was and the importance of maintaining its character. Mr. Lichtwardt said the city had “agreed with that assessment and had carried out [the Lictwardt’s] retention intent with all plans up to this point.”
It was verified with Mr. Lichtwardt that he was asking the city to protect the land to the south of the reserve as well, since he believed any road near the section line would be as destructive as a road going right through the conservation area. He agreed with the suggestion that moving the road ¼-mile to the south would have a significant beneficial impact in protecting the conservation reserve but thought this alignment would face other problems.
Mr. Lichtwardt responded to questioning that he would support a combination of the northern and southern alignment options as proposed in the letter he and his wife sent to the Commission.
Chairman Haase asked if Mr. Lichtwardt thought Wiggins (Martin Park) Road could be improved as an arterial road without compromising the Baldwin Creek environment. Mr. Lichtwardt suggested this could be done by improving the existing bridge over Baldwin Creek, in combination with the northern alignment option.
Bridgett Chapin of the Jayhawk Audubon Society called attention to the Society’s letter, which favored avoiding the center alignment. The Society was concerned about negative impacts on the cooperative efforts of ECO2. Ms. Chapin said the center alignment “may uphold the letter of the law, but not the spirit”, and support of the center alignment might dampen the enthusiasm for future land donations of a similar nature.
Speaking strictly as a birder, Ms. Chapin described the negative impacts of fragmenting existing ecosystems. She responded to questioning that the Society would support either of the other alignment options. She suggested the least opposition would be toward the Martin Park Road option. She said that ECO2 was formed to deal with finding the best compromise for all those involved.
Alan Black, President of the League of Women Voters’ Land Use Committee, read portions of the League’s letter into the record. He referenced the fact that this issue stemmed from the possibility that Highway 10 would be widened to as many as 8 lanes. Until now, Transportation 2025 had shown N1750 Road connecting to Queens Road to deal with this influx of additional traffic entering Lawrence.
The League questioned the choice of the center alignment without factoring in environmental impacts, cost projections, route combinations or need. The League asked the Commission to take no action until more information was available. Mr. Black was not prepared to estimate the cost of the needed environmental studies.
Comm. Lawson left at 11:00.
Forrest Swall, 1718 E. 1117 Road, said he was not here to tell the Commission which option to choose, but to emphasize the value of the conservation easement. Mr. Swall understood the need to address the traffic issue, but said the conservation easement was “not just another piece of land”. He said the value of the conservation property to the community had not been clearly stated.
Bob Eye spoke as legal representative for Bob & Betty Lichtwardt, Cheryl Varvil and Francis Kelly. His clients agreed that the central alignment was not a good choice. Mr. Eye said that, after hearing the public testimony and the concerns of the public and the Commission, there appeared to be “more questions than answers,” and the Commission did not yet have enough information to determine which alignment would have the most public benefit.
Mr. Eye said he did not hear a strong advocacy for any of the proposed options and he hoped the Commission recognized the weight carried by any recommendation made at this time.
Betty Lichtwardt recommended following up on the suggestion of a past member of the Commission, Myles Schachter, for extending a collector, not an arterial, in addition to the road system shown in HORIZON 2020 and Transportation 2025. She also said the Commission was forgetting about the eastern bypass, which would handle a lot of incoming traffic from the K-10 expansion.
Ms. Lichtwardt recommended the Commissioners reread Transportation 2025, because they were “talking about curing traffic problems with arterials when current transportation planners are using multi-modal transportation plans”. She would like the Commission to “rethink the whole planning system” to design the city around the multi-modal idea. When planning commercial areas, she said the city should think about how crowded streets already were and “please do your homework.”
The Commission agreed unanimously to extend the meeting 30 minutes.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Ahrens reminded the Commission that the proposed text amendment was developed in response to specific Commission direction. The Commission had previously reviewed all three alignments based on the information available and have rejected the northern and southern alignments. He outlined the challenges facing each option:
· Martin Park Road – This is the longest route with the least benefit in terms of relieving traffic on 6th Street
· Stetson Drive – This option is the closest to 6th Street. It is the shortest route and least expensive to construct, but it would create an “arterial loop” with a slight traffic decrease on 6th Street and a significant traffic increase on Wakarusa Drive.
· Peterson Road – Although this route faces significant terrain issues, it was chosen as the route with the best traffic service.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Jennings said the issue must be put in its proper scale; the area in question was larger than the KU campus. He noted the significant traffic issues that resulted because there is no east-west through street between 6th & 23rd Streets. He did not particularly care for the central alignment, feeling it would create more problems than it solved, and suggested the combination of a northern and southern route would be needed to avoid a bottleneck.
Comm. Riordan agreed a north and south combination would be needed when he considered the area fully developed. He did not think there was a marked difference between any of the options in regards to relief for 6th Street, when that was the point of the issue.
Chairman Haase said the Commission appeared to be at a consensus that more information was needed to find the best solution. However, he suggested the city protect the Peterson Road option by taking action today, with the understanding that “a line on the map does not mean the bulldozers begin tomorrow.” He said he would support such a motion because it would “light a fire under the interested parties to work together on a solution.”
Comm. Krebs disagreed, feeling the Commission was too “hesitant” to justify placing one alignment over the others. She suggested supporting all three alignments for equal study. Other Commissioners agreed, but some pointed out that all three options had already been considered and one had been chosen, leading to the text amendment at hand.
The Commission discussed what form the study/studies should take, agreeing they must be more in-depth than the information currently available. Comm. Burress said he was swayed by political arguments, but recognized the Planning Commission did not have the authority to allocate funding for studies. He recommended two alternatives to persuade the City Commission to allocate the needed funds:
1. Pass a resolution (Comm. Burress said this was the “ethical” choice)
2. Approve all three alignments to create political pressure (He thought this was the more “effective” alternative)
It was suggested that a combination of both methods would be appropriate.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 17
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the three routes shown in the Staff Report, known generally as Martin Park Road (extended), Peterson Road (extended), and Stetson Drive (extended) as potential arterial/collector connections on the Major Thoroughfares Map in HORIZON 2020.
Motion carried 5-3, with Comm.’s Burress, Angino, Eichhorn, Johnson and Erickson voting in favor. Comm.’s Jennings, Krebs, and Riordan voted in opposition, as well as Student Commissioner Brown.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to pass a Resolution requesting the City Commission establish funds for environmental impact studies, cost estimates and other relevant studies for the three new alignments.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.