COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF THE LAND USE COMMITTEE OF THE LWVL-DC RE:
DESIGN MAN UAL
March 16, 2005

My name is Betty Lichtwardt, and I am speaking on behalf of the Lawrence-Douglas County League of Women Voters Land Use Committee.

We are very pleased to see the Commercial Design Standards Manual as an addition to our planning tools. These Standards fill a major gap in our new zoning ordinance, and will be the needed improvement in the approval process of site plans.

We have asked in our letter to you that you not adopt this document until Ordinance 7581 is officially law, and we hope these comments will help as you review this Manual.

We believe parts of this Manual, should be reconsidered. We believe it should deal only with design standards. Because the new zoning Code (Ordinance 7581, Section 20-1305) already describes the review and approval process for site plans, this should not be duplicated here, but rather, Section IV in this Design Manual should be eliminated, thus avoiding conflict with our new zoning Code. Where necessary, the new zoning Code can be modified.

The Design Review Committee is new. However, there is no definition of the purpose, function, membership, or responsibilities of this DRC. This should be added to the new Zoning Code.

We have additional concerns which are annotated on the Manual text, copies of which we will leave with you on CDs. Some of these I will mention here.

1. The first concern is that the pictures are confusing. Each illustration should be labeled and consistent, and if not, it should clearly show which features are desirable and which are not, when both examples are in the same picture.

2. There should be a section for definitions. Some defmitions needed are for "operational compatibility," "architectural transition," "less intensive use," and "building massing."

Where "architectural transition" is used as a substitute for landscaped screening, it should be used only in a planned situation: for example in a TOD, a planned "New Urbanism" development, or in a planned Inner City Commercial District that also includes residences.

3. The design Manual and zoning Code should not conflict. (See Ordinance 7581, Section 20-915(e)(2). One serious example is on Page 17 of the Manual, regarding permitted driveway access onto arterials. Ordinance 7581, is more restrictive, and the Design Manual should be modified to conform to it.

4. Where standards in the Manual, itself, conflict, the less restrictive should be eliminated. One example is "building orientation," Page 13, where a waiver is allowed if the developer wants to set his/her main building farther back on the lot. This could allow all, or most, of the parking to be in front--one of the design features this Manual is trying to avoid.

5. The permitted location of one monument sign per curb cut (Page 38) could lead to a battle for curb cuts onto arterials, resulting in strip commercial. Please modify this standard. One monument sign per public street intersection (with locational flexibility) would be a more realistic standard, and would encourage nodal development and better circulation and access design.

6. Natural materials are required for part of building exteriors. Please also include a list of exterior materials NOT PERMITTED, such as corrugated steel siding, translucent plastic, fiberglass, etc. Also please include types of roofing materials not permitted.

7. Shade trees dispersed throughout parking areas are environmentally preferable to being condensed into one area. (See Pages 26 & 45.)

Our other comments you will find on the CD.

We thank you and the Committee for your considerable work and dedication in creating this very needed document. We hope our comments are helpful in your review of this Commercial Design Standards Manual. Thank you, again.

League of Women Voters of Lawrence-Douglas County

P.O. Box 1072, Lawrence, Kansas 66044

March 13, 2005

John Haase, Chairman

Members

Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission City Hall

Lawrence, Kansas 66044

RE: ITEM NO. 11: COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Dear Chairman Haase and Planning Commissioners:

We understand that the Draft Community Design Manual — Section Two: Commercial is intended to be supplemental to our proposed new Development Code (Ordinance 7851). However, we find some critical conflicts between the draft Design Manual and the proposed New Code. For example, some general standards regarding driveway access onto arterials that have been incorporated into the New Code conflict with the standards proposed in the Manual. There are also some provisions included in the Manual that deal with adoption procedure, which is the subject of one whole section in the New Code. We believe that it would better to include these in the Code, rather than in the Manual, in order to avoid conflicts. Furthermore, careful reading reveals that some of the provisions in the Manual conflict with other provisions in the document itself, and tend to nullify the Manual's more restrictive provisions. Finally, some of the illustrations provided appear to us to be misleading, sometimes including examples of both good and bad design together. We believe that these will require substantial revision before they will clearly illustrate the design principles intended. Members of the Land Use Committee are continuing to study the Design Manual, and—should you postpone adoption of this document—we anticipate having additional comments to make in the near future.

Because the Ordinance 7851 will be returned to the Planning Commission for a final review sometime this summer, we ask that you not approve this Manual until the New Code has been adopted. In this way, the Design Manual can be refined so as to be in agreement with the City Code.

Sincerely yours,