Planning Commission Mid-Month Meeting
City Commission Room,
November 3, 2004 - 7:30 a.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Erickson, Angino, Krebs, Jennings, Haase, Riordan, Lawson and Eichhorn
Staff Present: Finger, Stogsdill, Hauschild and Saker
Meeting called to order at 7:35
TOPIC ONE: Comment on Potential Parkland Acquisition
Chairman Haase was asked to lead the discussion regarding this item because it had originally been part of a regular agenda meeting.
Comm. Angino said this acquisition seemed “harmless”, and stated his appreciation for the issue appearing before the Planning Commission in response to their request.
Comm. Burress said it was clearly an improvement for the city to own the subject property.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to forward a statement of support for the city’s acquisition of the subject property and thanking the Parks & Recreation Department for bringing the issue to the Planning Commission for a recommendation.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
As a related issue, Comm. Krebs explained that the new subcommittee formed to review the draft Parks & Recreation chapter update had met. At that meeting, the Parks & Recreation Director, Fred DeVictor, had explained the difficulty of bringing potential land acquisitions in front of the Planning Commission before negotiations with the current land owner were finalized. Negotiations were frequently private considerations, and bringing the issue into the public forum could impact the outcome. The committee had discussed creating a list of criteria by which the parks department would choose potential land acquisitions, rather than bringing each case to the Planning Commission.
It was discussed that state statute would not allow the Planning Commission to go into executive session to discuss matters outside of the public forum. However, Planning Commissioners could be invited as advisors to an executive session of the City Commission when new land acquisition was considered. This might, however, create issues of serial communication in violation of the Open Meetings Act as those Planning Commissioners attending the executive session relayed information to other Commissioners.
Comm. Burress asked for clarification on why negotiating parties would not want their issue made public. Staff explained that making other potential bidders aware that the land was available might drive up the price for the city or otherwise negatively impact the city’s negotiating abilities.
TOPIC TWO: Presentation of Draft Commercial Design Standards
Mr. Hauschild gave an overview of the provided information.
The Commercial Design Standards Committee had been working for just over a year, looking at design standards for about 50 communities nationwide and identifying what standards would be most appropriate for Lawrence. Overland Park was selected as a community that had many standards appropriate for Lawrence that could serve as a model in both content and format.
The standards would fall under two major categories, Site Planning and Aesthetic Character, and list of elements was created for each category. Elements such as streetscapes, access planning, landscaping, lighting, etc. fell into the Site Planning category, while the Aesthetic Character category contained elements such as building design, entryways and signage. A complete outline of all elements and subcategories of these elements was provided.
Mr. Hauschild said the standards were developed on the basis of three primary objectives for new commercial development:
The committee forwarded the draft document to the full Commission for comment. Illustrations and graphics would be added for clarity and the document would be adopted by reference into the proposed Land Development Code (LCD). It was discussed that adopting the chapter by reference, rather than placing the entire document into the LDC, had two advantages.
It was pointed out that design was a dynamic concept and would be constantly changing. This method of adoption would make future revisions to the chapter in response to those changes less complicated. Staff also supported the adoption by reference method because the chapter was lengthy and would significantly increase the size of the LDC if amended into the Code in its entirety.
The Committee is now reviewing the standards to ensure they do not hinder creativity or the ability to do horizontal or vertical mixed-use development. They are also reviewing which kinds of commercial development each standard should apply to (i.e. infill, neighborhood, community and/or regional).
The Committee is trying to troubleshoot conflicts between the standards and other adopted documents on issues like street design, stormwater management, access planning, etc., as well as looking at how the standards would fit with the new development code. It was commented that an addendum would be developed to the current document that identified potential conflicts and recommended solutions to those conflicts.
The Committee is considering establishing a system of incentives for developers that above and beyond the set development standards.
It was the goal of the Committee and Staff to have a draft document ready for public review by the end of 2004.
Myles Schachter, a member of the Commercial Design Committee, was present to make additional comments. He said the Committee had determined that there was no single design character in Lawrence and they wanted to encourage the continuation of that mix. The chapter was written as a moderate approach that allowed a variety of styles and elements.
It was clarified that amendments to the design manual would still go through the Planning Commission for a public hearing process, but inclusion by reference in LDC meant that an amendment to the overall LDC would not be needed every time the standards were revised.
Comm. Burress made the following suggestions:
It was suggested that Comm. Burress’ concerns about lighting were addressed in other sections of the code and this manual should include a statement that lighting should not extend beyond the property line.
Comm. Angino commented on the language regarding natural landscapes and features. He suggested that trying to control or alter the natural course of drainageways was pointless. It was noted that the standards suggested it would be impossible to protect every natural drainageway and proposed regulating only those requiring a pipe of 72” or more in diameter.
There was discussion about establishing a mitigation process for destroying natural vegetation. It was noted that the current code requires trees in isolation in the middle of parking lots and similar locations. The new design standards recommended clustered vegetation that would be more effective for shading and visual purposes and would be more likely to survive.
It was established that the new design standards would be administered by Staff and would be triggered for any commercial development requiring a site plan. The SmartGrowth Committee had suggested the creation of a Design Advisory Committee, members of the Commission that would review cases where the developer did not agree with the decisions of Staff. Review by this body would not be required, but could be requested by either the applicant or Staff.
It was pointed out that most site plans would be handled administratively according to the new development code, meaning site plans would go to the governing body only the case of an appeal. Development plans would still go through the Planning Commission and the governing body.
Comm. Eichhorn made the following suggestions:
The Commission was asked to send additional comments to Mr. Schachter.
TOPIC THREE – Presentation of Draft Smart Growth Recommendations
Mr. Hauschild explained the city had received a grant to take part in a study of several communities for SmartGrowth opportunities. A group of representatives visited with various committees and area interest groups and developed the recommendations presented today. These recommendations focused on redevelopment of existing areas and new development in the fringe areas of the city.
SmartGrowth consultants identified five SmartGrowth principles most relevant to development in Lawrence as they relate to commercial development. From these principles, the consultants provided a template of standards that would be “filled in” to specifically fit this community.
The SmartGrowth consultants made three recommendations responding to the work of the Commercial Design Committee:
Staff anticipates the consultants will be available to present their final recommendations in December.
It was established that the city had to pay only for travel and lodging for the consultants. The monetary value of the study covered by the grant was unknown.
Comm. Angino said he supported the idea of medians in 23rd Street to soften the starkness of the area and suggested this would be appropriate on 6th Street as well. He questioned, however, the recommendation that openings in the medians be placed at 1000’ intervals. He thought this placement would not be appropriate for 23rd Street and would force commercial traffic into residential areas. Ms. Finger said that some guidelines were meant to apply to specific areas, some were created for new development and some were designed for retrofitting in existing areas. Vice-Chair Riordan commented that the most challenging part of developing the recommendations was applying principles to existing development.
There was discussion about creating as many access points as possible on principle arterials, according to the guidelines of new urbanism. It was noted that more access points resulted in less congestion, but encouraged cut-through traffic in neighborhoods. It was suggested that the biggest cause of cut-through traffic was the failure of primary roads to function as they were designed.
TOPIC FOUR: Parking Lot List
The Commission talked about reorganizing the Parking Lot list, removing items that had been dealt with or that were sent to subcommittee. Staff was directed to chart the issues on the list to show which ones impacted more than one planning element. They were also asked to prioritize topics in order of Staff’s opinion of their importance. Comm. Burress added to this assignment a request that issues be prioritized once according to importance and again according to anticipated ease of completion. Comm. Eichhorn volunteered to help Staff in this task.
Comm. Burress asked to add to the Parking Lot list a discussion of ways to speed up the approval process. He also asked that the Commission talk about developing names and definitions for various sizes of neighborhood plans. Ms. Finger said this task could be undertaken by the new Staff member that would join the department in November.
The Commission discussed when Parking Lot issues could be dealt with, at Mid-Month meetings, at the annual retreat, or at special meetings scheduled for that purpose. Staff pointed out that Mid-Month topics had been scheduled through the beginning of 2005 and not all of these topics were reflected on the Parking Lot list.
It was established that the Comprehensive Plans Committee had a schedule for dealing with the multiple topics that had been assigned to them from the parking Lot list.
It was suggested that the Commission consider not adding any new items to the Parking Lot list until some of the existing list was dealt with. Several Commissioners did not support this idea, wanting the ability to put an issue on the list at any time instead of spending agenda meeting time on that topic.
Comm. Burress asked each Commissioner to state one topic on the current list that they felt should be given top priority:
Comm. Haase stated that the Commission had never understood “what neighborhood planning is – what it looks like and how roads work together in that.” He suggested the Commission needed to decide what made up a neighborhood subdivision or plan before spending time on issues that would be affected by that definition.
ADJOURN – 8:55 a.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department.