|
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Regular Agenda - Public Hearing Item |
PC Staff Report
11/16/05
ITEM NO. 19: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO HORIZON 2020 – CHAPTER 7 (INDUSTRIAL & EMPLOYMENT-RELATED LAND USE) (WBH)
CPA-2004-2: An amendment to Horizon 2020 to update the Industrial and Employment-Related Land Use Element (Chapter 7). This amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission at its October 27, 2004 regular meeting at the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plans Committee (CPC). The CPC reviewed this chapter as part of the annual update process to Horizon 2020, the comprehensive land use plan for the City of Lawrence and unincorporated Douglas County. [The Planning Commission held a public hearing on a previous draft at the 02/23/05 meeting and referred the draft to the Comprehensive Plans Committee for additional review.]
STAFF REVIEW
Included as part of this staff report is the proposed text amendment to Chapter 7 (Industrial and Employment-Related Land Use) as recommended by the CPC. Staff reviewed this amendment based upon the text amendment review criteria listed below (identified in Chapter 13 (Implementation) of Horizon 2020). After receiving public comment at the February meeting, the Planning Commission returned the draft chapter to the CPC with direction to review the chapter in light of the discussion at that meeting and to incorporate the information form ECO2’s study of industrial land uses and other public/commission comments. The 02/23/05 meeting minutes are attached.
A. Does the proposed amendment results from changed circumstances or unforeseen conditions not understood or addressed at the time the Plan was adopted?
The proposed amendment is a result of the changing circumstances that have occurred since the comprehensive plan was first written. At the time Horizon 2020 was written, there was an adequate supply of land available to fill the community’s industrial and employment-related needs. This is no longer the case. Existing areas are at or nearing capacity and there is a shortage of land available to accommodate large land-area users. The proposed amendment is also reflective of a stated need to identify additional areas within Lawrence and Douglas County appropriate for industrial and employment-related land uses.
The proposed amendment also addresses an expressed need to better distinguish between industrial land use and employment-related land use. While both types of land uses share similar characteristics, such as the need occupy large land areas, they also share different qualities, such as traffic generation and intensity of use. The proposed amendment takes into consideration these similarities and differences by addressing each in its own “section.”
B. Does the proposed amendment advance a clear public purpose and is it consistent with the long-range goals and policies of the plan?
The proposed amendment is an advancement of a clear public purpose and is consistent with the long-range planning goals and policies of the community. Industrial and employment-related land use is an important facet in any community, and the proposed amendment gives Douglas County and the City of Lawrence a clearer look at how to maintain and enhance its existing areas and how to appropriately identify new areas. The proposed amendment helps further the goals and policies for industrial and employment-related land use while staying consistent with the overall intent of Horizon 2020 and the goals and policies relating to economic development, transportation, parks and recreation, and the various other components of the comprehensive plan.
C. Is the proposed amendment a result of a clear change in public policy?
The proposed amendment to Horizon 2020 is in direct response to a joint city/county ordinance/resolution #6507/#03-36 (approved in December 2003, see attached) that directed the Lawrence/Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Office to begin the process of updating the Industrial Land Use Chapter of Horizon 2020. This direction was a result of the updated Economic Development Element (Chapter 12) of Horizon 2020 that recommended the identification of an additional one thousand (1,000) acres for industrial and employment-related land uses (refer to Priority 6.1, page 12-6). The proposed text amendment does not specifically identify acreage amounts, but it does identify approximate locations where acreage exists that can meet the objectives of the joint city/county ordinance/resolution. It is staff’s opinion that identifying specific acreage amounts is not appropriate in a comprehensive land use plan and would be better served in neighborhood or special area planning activities where the goal is to give more specific guidance within a specific neighborhood or area.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – 02/23/05
ITEM NO. 6: AMENDMENT TO HORIZON 2020 – CHAPTER 7 (WBH)
CPA-2004-02: Amendment to Horizon 2020 to update Chapter 7 (Industrial and Employment-Related Land Use). This item was deferred from the February 2, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Hauschild introduced the item, a proposed amendment to HORIZON 2020 to update Chapter 7 – Industrial and Employment-Related Land Use. He gave background on the process leading to the update, which included input from various City Departments, the Chamber of Commerce and the ECO2 Committee.
Criteria were developed for identifying appropriate industrial sites and information was gathered about different types of industrial uses and opportunities Lawrence had lost because suitable industrial sites were not available.
An additional 1000 acres were identified, as well as a number of smaller sites deemed appropriate for office/business/research types of uses.
The chapter update was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2004 and referred to the Comprehensive Plan Committee. Following review and revision, the CPC forwarded a recommended draft chapter, which was initiated as a text amendment in October 2004.
Mr. Hauschild outlined the primary changes in the updated chapter:
1. Formatting – based on direction to distinguish clearly between industrial land use and employment-related land use. Two sections identifying types of uses in each category, including how to identify appropriate locations
2. Language on locating potential industrial sites – general criteria for locating appropriate sites; proximity to floodplain and infrastructure, topography, parcel size and acreage, etc. New areas were identified for industrial use and mapped later in the chapter. Site-specific criteria were also developed for a more detailed look at appropriate locations (road design, zoning, existing development, timing of services, environmental conditions, etc.)
3. Mapping – one map identifies existing industrial areas within Lawrence and its UGA. A second map shows locations areas identified per the general criteria as appropriate for additional industrial sites. This map mirrored the recommendations of ECO2, but in a general sense because ECO2’s study is not complete. Also, in Staff’s opinion it was more appropriate to identify specific sites in a neighborhood or area plan.
4. Goals & Policies – added text to Goal 2 about location criteria and language about design standards to all Goals.
Staff recommended approval of the chapter as presented.
Comm. Burress asked for information about the potential site shown at Baldwin Junction. Mr. Hauschild said this site was identified using the general location criteria because it was located at the intersection of two state highways and had large tracts of land. This particular site was complicated by its location within the 3-mile of Baldwin City, but in Staff’s opinion it was important to identify the site for future investigation as a long-range possibility. Comm. Burress said the chapter should specifically state when an identified site was a long-range (25-50 year) vs. short-range (10-20 year) possibility.
Comm. Burress said this was the first time the city had done any planning beyond the 20-year growth horizon and he was concerned about the implications.
Comm. Burress referenced language about building new sites within the UGA. He pointed out the UGA was significant in size and the text was not clear that new sites should not be built in locations that were not close to annexation. Staff agreed this was the intent of the chapter. Comm. Burress suggested revising the language to tie new sites in the unincorporated areas to annexation potential, since all other factors could change. He said other paragraphs held similar vague language.
Comm. Eichhorn noted that the total amount of all the potential new industrial sites was about 2500 and asked if the county needed that much industrial land. He also pointed out that none of the new acreage was located near an interstate, although that was one of the primary reasons stated for lost industrial opportunities in the past. Mr. Hauschild replied that Staff and ECO2 struggled with finding sites along the interstate that met other location criteria. Many sites east along I-70 faced floodplain issues, while western properties had significant slopes. Ms. Finger pointed out two locations close to the corridor that were serviceable by utilities, one in North Lawrence and one at K-10 and US40.
Comm. Erickson asked for examples of industrial uses that did not require a level of service. Mr. Hauschild said rural water district uses, agricultural service providers and rock quarries were some examples.
Staff responded to questioning that access to public transit was listed in the chapter as a goal consideration but it was not a general criteria.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress referenced the multiple comments received in writing from the League of Women Voters, saying although no one was present to speak about the document, people had been reading it.
Comm. Eichhorn asked if the document was being considered tonight for approval as the new industrial chapter. If this was so, he wanted to state for the record that the document had a “glaring misrepresentation of having the transit network for interstate access.”
Chairman Haase stated his agreement that the document was not ready for adoption. He was concerned that the chapter did not synchronize with other documents, such as the Southeast Area Plan or the ECO2 study, when both would soon be complete. He suggested sending the document back to subcommittee to think about how this information interacted with those other sources. Chairman Haase was also concerned about eth lack of scientific data provided in this chapter in comparison with other chapters. He said the chapter should get specific about when and where industrial development would take place and how that fit into projected need.
Comm. Ermeling felt the document should be tied closely to the Transportation Master Plan, saying this was an important element that should be under consideration now.
Comm. Burress asked for clarification of the term “interstate access”. How far a traveling distance did this involve and on what kind of road? Mr. Hauschild said the term generally implied a distance of one mile or less to the access road. The Commission or committee could fine-tune that definition as seen fit.
Chairman Haase said it did not appear that the chapter could be refined to an adoptable state tonight. He suggested returning the document to subcommittee and encouraged individuals to submit additional comments in writing.
Other comments given at the meeting included:
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to return the draft Industrial & Employment Related chapter to the Comprehensive Plans Committee with direction to review the chapter in light of tonight’s discussion and to incorporate the information from ECO2’s study of industrial land uses and other public/commission comments.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.