Opposition ltr Sale Barn extend

Date: Feb. 11, 2005

Re: SP-12-86-04: Re-approval of SP-08-61-00/SP-01-09-04

– Office/Warehouse located at 911 E. 11th Street

To the City Commission:

The twelve-person Burroughs Creek Area Plan study committee was formed after the City Commission enacted a twelve-month temporary building-permit moratorium on Oct. 26, 2004, at the request of the "EBB Rail Corridor" inter-neighborhood task force, a joint initiative by the leaders and members of the [Old] East Lawrence, Brook Creek and Barker neighborhood associations.

The study committee held two organizing meetings, on Dec. 2, 2004, and Jan. 5, 2005. It first full-agenda meeting was Jan. 19, 2005, and the second meeting was Feb. 9, 2005. The project is well underway and the group is lively, collegial, and strongly committed to our work.

The committee is ten members of the community and two Staff members: two representatives from each of the three neighborhood associations, a citizen representing industrial-zoning interests in the Plan Area, representatives from the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission, the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, and the Bicycle Advisory Committee; all working with the Park & Maintenance Superintendent from the Parks & Recreation Dept., and Planning staff's new area/neighborhood planner.

The names of those persons are, respectively: Janet Good; Dayna Carleton; Michael Almon; James Grauerholz; Jim Carpenter; Allen Levine; Lee Zimmerman, Sr.; Richard Heckler; Marguerite Ermeling; Bill Penny; Eric Struckhoff; Mark Hecker; and Michelle Leininger.

The study committee discussed this matter at our plenary meeting on Feb. 9, 2005, and the non-Staff committee members voted unanimously to oppose the applicant's request for a belated extension of site plan approval for SP-08-61-00/SP-01-09-04, and also to oppose Staff's recommendation that the approval be extended for three months, to May 9, 2005.

We urge the Commission to deny the extension for the following reasons (which are further discussed in a supporting document):

1) A renewal of this plan would violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Ordinance 7841, the Burroughs Creek Area Plan moratorium.

2) Conditions and circumstances in the vicinity of this site plan have changed substantially since the plan was first approved, and it is no longer appropriate for the site, in its current form: viz., the Eastern Lawrence Rail-Trail project; the Hobbs Park Memorial (Murphy-Bromelsick House relocation); new Municipal Stadium improvements; a major stormwater project nearby; and now the Burroughs Creek Area Plan / Rail-Trail Corridor project.

3) The site plan's renewal in February 2004 may not, in fact, have been legal, since the applicant slept on his rights, and his third one-year renewal expired on Nov. 7, 2003. That was one month before even a verbal request for another renewal was received by the City, and two months before the applicant's written request in January.

4) The applicant's "industrial land inventory benefit" argument in his Feb. 4, 2005, letter is unconvincing, since the City's future needs for such land are being addressed at this time, and there are already three other, larger and more appropriately-sited, industrial districts in Lawrence, with much undeveloped land.

5) The late-2000 review process for the original submission was inadequate even under the then-obtaining conditions in the site's vicinity. In particular, stormwater-drainage and traffic impact from this proposed pavement-intensive, 95-car, four-truck-dock warehouse use were insufficiently studied.

6) The site's location is unsuitable for office use under current Horizon 2020 policy (Chap. 7, August 2004 draft amendment), and there is already a documented glut of vacant office space in existing buildings in Lawrence.

7) Denial of this request does not impose an "unnecessary hardship" upon the applicant, as defined in Code Sec. 21-901.6 (47), and the Commission has no legal obligation to renew the site plan approval again.

On behalf of the Burroughs Creek Area Plan study committee and with their authorization, I can state to you that the ten non-staff members agree unanimously that we do not need three months to reach consensus on our recommendation to the City Commission concerning this request.

We recommend that the City Commission deny the request in applicant's SP-12-86-04.

Respectfully submitted:,

James W. Grauerholz

for the Burroughs Creek Area Plan study committee.

POLICY AND ARGUMENT

The following notes have not been reviewed in detail or specifically approved by the Burroughs Creek Area Plan study committee. They are written and submitted by James Grauerholz personally, in further support of the committee's seven reasons for opposing the SP-12-86-04 renewal request in their Feb. 11, 2005, letter.

1) SITE PLAN RENEWAL WOULD VIOLATE THE SPIRIT, IF NOT THE LETTER, OF THE BURROUGHS CREEK AREA PLAN MORATORIUM.

From Sheila Stogsdill's Feb. 8, 2005, memo to the City Commission:

"The property is located within the study area of the EBB (East Lawrence, Barker & Brook Creek) Rail Corridor Plan. The property is also in the temporary building permit moratorium area defined in Ordinance No. 7841. This ordinance established a 12 month moratorium on building permits in the area except for projects that have submitted a request for site plan approval prior to October 26, 2004.

"The Commission could request that the EBB Rail Corridor committee comment on this extension request. It would be reasonable to extend the approval for three months to allow the committee to consider this proposed project in light of the committee’s discussion of the area plan and provide a recommendation to the City Commission on whether a full 12 month extension should be granted."

If the applicant is granted even a three-month extension, and if he is then able in that time to obtain a building permit for this site plan, the Burroughs Creek Area Plan study committee—and the City at large—will be denied any opportunity to affect the future of this crucial site.

As was pointed out before the City Commission last year, there remains very little land along the old BNSF rail corridor from 23rd to 9th Street that is not already developed or approved for specific development projects. The few such sites that do remain, to which a new land-use philosophy emerging from the Burroughs Creek Area Planning process might be applied, therefore acquire a heightened significance.

2) CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT'S VICINITY HAVE CHANGED SUBSTANTIALLY SINCE 2000.

The Eastern Lawrence Rail-Trail project may require public access to this crucial site. This possibility should be kept open during the moratorium period.

The site is adjacent to the old A.T. & S.F. the railroad line, where a "Rails-WITH-Trails" agreement might be reached with the current owner, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, for their 11th-to-12th St. non-abandoned rail spur.

This option would allow optimum connectivity for the Eastern Lawrence Rail-Trail project to existing and planned bicycle paths and routes, and City parks and open space, outside the northern limits of the Burroughs Creek Study Area.

The site—on which the Lawrence Livestock Sale Barn was stood, from its erection in the late 1930s until its demolition by the present applicant in 1996—is adjacent to the historic Hobbs Park Memorial,, which was recommended by the Historic Resources Commission in August 2004 for nomination by the City itself for historic city landmark status. The proposed office/warehouse use is inappropriate there.

In a Sept. 29, 2004, memo to the City Manager, Planning staff wrote:

"In April 2004, the Hobbs Park Memorial Fund requested that the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) investigate the feasibility of listing Hobbs Park on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.

"At their meeting on August 19, 2004, the HRC determined that Hobbs Park meets the criteria for designation established in Chapter 22 of the Code of the City of Lawrence and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Commission, as property owner, initiate the landmark application process."

The Aug. 19, 2004, letter to the Historic Resources Commission from the Hobbs Park Memorial Fund's founder, Mark Kaplan, further describes the historic significance of this area, and mentions :

"We feel that Hobbs Park, through its varied associations with Lawrence’s storied past, from the earliest days of the city’s history, has a significant narrative to recount. From its beginnings as an early preemption of John Speer, one of Lawrence’s founders, to its military encampments and battlements, its Quaker Meeting House, the LL & G railroad, its surrounding canneries and industrial legends, its tiny WWII-era POW camps, and the recently demolished Livestock Sale Barn—the site is a veritable theme park of historic associations, which tie Lawrence and her citizens to the great drama of our nation’s history."

The Civil-War-era Murphy-Bromelsick House was moved to Hobbs Park in August 2000, further restored, and dedicated in August 2001. In late 2003 a $100,000 federal grant to the Hobbs Park Memorial was announced, with these remarks illustrating its regional significance:

Congress OKs $100,000 for Hobbs Park Memorial

November 1, 2003, Lawrence Journal World

A memorial to Lawrence's "Bleeding Kansas" days is getting some financial help from Congress. Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan., announced Friday that the U. S. House of Representatives had voted to set aside $100,000 in the 2004 federal budget for the Hobbs Park Memorial.

"The Hobbs Park Memorial symbolizes a chapter in American history that defines us (as) a nation," Moore said. "It is a testament to the enduring bravery and sacrifice for freedom made by the pioneers of Kansas. Preserving this national treasure will enable us to better understand its historic significance and relvance to Kansans today."

Mayor David Dunfield, who is helping lead a committee to promote Lawrence's Civil War era history through a federal National Heritage Area designation, on Friday praised the grant.

The Old East Lawrence Neighborhood Association favors consideration of the possible expansion of Hobbs Park by City acquisition of the subject property on East 11th St. This possibility should be kept open during the Ord. 7841 moratorium period, until Oct. 25, 2005.

The East Lawrence Revitalization Plan adopted by the [Old] East Lawrence NA and the City on Nov. 21, 2000 (two weeks after this site plan was first approved) included this suggestion:

"[The City should] Purchase the old Sale Barn lot and create a park connecting Hobbs Park with Brook Creek Park. This is the three-acre parcel which is adjacent to Hobbs Park on 11th St. It is currently listed for sale as an industrial site."

Of the 90 participants in the neighborhood-plan development process who responded to this proposition, 58 stated it was "an appropriate action" and only 8 stated that it was not an appropriate action.

The Municipal Baseball Stadium, which has been rejuvenated with a mural and increased sports use, is adjacent to the site. An office/warehouse use is inappropriate there.

The Stadium at 11th and Delaware (in Hobbs Park) was built in 1947, and baseball games at the ballpark drew as many as 2,500 people for next one or two decades. Later, the stadium fell into disuse, until the Old East Lawrence NA and the Parks & Recreation Dept. promoted a revival of activity there in recent years.

In 2004 more than two dozen volunteers executed a colorful 1,500-sq.-ft. artwork, coordinated by David Loewenstein, on the stadium structure. The mural depicts scenes and persons from the history of eastern Lawrence, such as:

"... early abolitionist newspaper publisher John Speer, whose homestead was near the stadium; poet Langston Hughes, who spent part of his childhood in East Lawrence; canneries, which provided employment to many in the neighborhood; the nearby World War II German POW camp; and John Brown, who kept lookout near the site for attacking Missourians during the Wakarusa War of 1856."

(LJW, June 9, 2004)

The Burroughs Creek stormwater project ("13th & Oregon project") has also significantly changed the "surrounding zoning and land use" since it was last formally evaluated by Staff, in their Nov. 7, 2000, Site Plan Review.

3) THE FEB. 2004 RENEWAL MAY HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL.

There is substantial ambiguity as to whether the purported "extension" approved by the Commission on Feb. 10, 2004, was legally approved under the relevant Code Sections 1428:1435 prescribing the Site Plan Approval process. The site plan's approval had expired on Nov. 7, 2003,

The "extension" that was granted (as a consent agenda item, without discussion) by the City Commission on Feb. 10, 2004, was legally a new application, and the January 2004 submission should have been reviewed de novo.

History: This application was first submitted in August 2000 and reviewed by Staff. It was approved on Sept. 27, 2000 (consent agenda) by the Planning Commission, and on Nov. 7, 2000 (consent agenda) by the City Commission. It was re-approved by the City Commission on Nov. 6, 2001 (consent agenda), and on Nov. 5, 2002 (consent agenda).

As Planning's Sheila Stogsdill stated in her memo to you of Feb. 10, 2004:

"The applicant verbally requested an extension late last year [2003]; however a written request was just recently received."

The "SP-01-09-04" designation indicates that the written extension request was received in January 2005, about two months after the original approval, as renewed, had legally expired.

Current City Code Sec. 20-1435 states unequivocally:

"If no building permit is issued for the site within one year from the date of site plan approval by the city commission, the site plan shall be and become null and void. (Ord. 5530)"

4) SUFFICIENT INDUSTRIAL-PROJECT LAND ALREADY EXISTS OR IS BEING PLANNED FOR THE FUTURE.

The adjacent neighborhoods and the Rail Corridor area are already overdeveloped industrially; that is part of the impetus for the creation of the Burroughs Creek Area Plan process.

There is substantial land available in the Santa Fe Industrial Area (I-70 and Iowa), the Oread West Research Park (Wakarusa Dr. and Bob Billings Parkway), and the East Hills Business Park. The Southeast Area Plan process now appears to be offering more industrial land in the near future.

And many parcels of industrial land, and industrial buildings, sit vacant today, with "For-Lease" or "Build-To-Suit" signs on them ... several of them within the Burroughs Creek Study Area, in fact.

Stogsdill's Feb. 8, 2005 memo to you notes that "There is reasonable economic development justification to keep 'approved' industrial sites in the inventory of properties that can be shown to industrial prospects," and it cites "the community’s desire to maintain an adequate inventory of properties available for industrial development." This is true, and the goal is valid.

However, the portion of "the community" that resides in Old East Lawrence, Brook Creek, and Barker has had to live for decades next to one of the biggest clusters of industrial-use land parcels to be found anywhere in the entire City, mostly built before the BNSF ceased to use their rail spur, during 1988–2001.

Another factor in the formation of the "EBB Rail Corridor" inter-neighborhood task force was the legacy of the "Venture Business Park" development between 19th and 22nd Streets on Delaware and the west side of the BNSF line, which occurred mostly during 1987–1991: about 30 acres of large industrial buildings which precluded a more residential development pattern in that area.

When in Feb. 1988 the AT&SF railroad (now BNSF) formally abandoned its rail spur from 11th to 29th St. with an ICC/STB ruling, that vacant, natural land still lay undeveloped between the three "EBB" neighborhoods. But the Venture Business Park development continued, despite neighbors' protests.

The applicant's Feb. 4, 2005, letter to Planning staff states that:

"A number of substantial employers came to this community because we were able to deliver buildings for them in a short period of time. Venture Business Park [...] is an example. [...] There is a definite need for approved business sites held in inventory for those employers wanting to move quickly and provide jobs in this city and/or county."

While building the City's employer base is certainly a worthy goal, nevertheless it is rather awkward for the applicant to boast of his Venture Business Park project in this context.

The applicant's investment in 911 E. 11th St. (believed to be about $85,000 in 1995), and in the Peridian Group's Aug. 2000 design drawings commissioned for this office-warehouse, and in his carrying costs for ten years, and other costs, must be respected.

It is understandable that the applicant would like to retain this already-designed office/warehouse project in his inventory of business-opportunity locations to offer to qualified companies. But no one should be allowed to "stockpile" approved—but unbuilt—industrial projects, year after year, for possible future development, without regard for substantially changed conditions in the immediate vicinity of that land, nor for the wishes of the people who live in those neighborhoods.

5) THE 2000 REVIEW OF TRAFFIC AND STORMWATER IMPACTS FROM THIS PLAN WAS INADEQUATE.

Horizon 2020's draft amendment of Chapter 7, "Industrial and Employment-Related Uses" (August 2004), says this about the "Santa Fe Railroad Corridor":

"Future development in this area should seek to minimize traffic conflicts with surrounding residential areas, as well as potential conflicts between adjoining industrial land use operations and sites" (p. 4).

The applicant evidently anticipates a lot of automobile and truck traffic at this site. The site plan provides 95 parking spaces—although only 45 are required by the City—and four full-size truck docks.

This is so much excess parking that the interior greenspace provided is only 5% of the gross area of the lot, and the impervious building roofs and pavement take up 71% of the gross area.

Planning staff even suggested, in their Nov. 7, 2000, Site Plan Review:

"17. Since quite a few additional parking spaces are being provided than what is required, consider eliminating the [16] stalls in the northwest corner of the site to allow for greenspace and buffering. (Notified)"

The applicant declined to reduce his parking stalls by the suggested 17%.

Pavement alone would cover half the land's 2.86 acres. It is not clear why the Stormwater Dept., in Staff's Nov. 7, 2000, Site Plan Review, did not require a drainage study, when the usual threshold for that requirement is one-half acre. But it is clear the property is no longer within the regulatory floodplain.

With regard to the warehouse use proposed by applicant, draft Chapter 7 says::

"Warehouse and distribution activities require locations adjacent to major transportation corridors for easy access in the shipment and delivery of goods. Within the City of Lawrence, these major transportation corridors include the Kansas Turnpike/I-70 to the east and west; US-59 to the north and south; US-24/40 to the east and west; and the South Lawrence Trafficway/K-10 to the east." (p. 7)

The truck and car traffic generated by this project must drive on Haskell (a minor arterial) to 23rd St., or on East 11th St. (a minor arterial) to a major arterial like Connecticut north to the Kaw River Bridge, to gain access to these transportation corridors.

There are in this site plan two curb cuts on 11th St., with centerlines about 487 feet apart. The centerline of the eastern curb cut is about 499 feet from the centerline of Haskell Avenue. The June 21, 2004, draft Access Management Standards prescribe a minimum of 600 feet from the intersection of two arterials to the nearest curb cut for a private driveway.

6) THE SITE IS NOW INAPPROPRIATE FOR OFFICE USE, AND THERE IS CURRENTLY A GLUT OF VACANT OFFICE SPACE IN LAWRENCE.

With regard to the applicant's proposed office use, Horizon 2020's latest draft of Chapter 7 says:

New office uses will generally be restricted to existing commercial areas of the city, including the downtown area. Currently [in August 2004], there is an abundance of vacant retail and office space in the City of Lawrence that can absorb the demand for leased office space.

7) DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST IS LEGAL AND IMPOSES NO UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ON APPLICANT.

Since Ord. 7841 exempts projects that have "submitted a request for development plan or site plan approval prior to October 26, 2004," a strict reading of the ordinance may not technically prohibit the Commission's renewal of this site plan approval.

But the Commission is under absolutely no legal obligation to re-approve this site plan now, for a fifth year.

Denial of this request does not impose "unnecessary hardship" upon the applicant, as defined in Code Sec. 21-901.6 (47).

For the Commission to deny this fourth request for site plan renewal would by no means be "an arbitrary and capricious interference with the basic right of private property ownership,." There will be no uncompensated taking. And:

"Mere financial loss or the loss of a potential financial advantage does not constitute unnecessary hardship." (Ord. 7593)

The Lawrence City Commission is legally entitled—and may be, by its own approved ordinances and policies, required—to deny this request for an extension of site plan approval for SP-08-61-00/SP-01-09-04.

——————O———————