League of Women Voters of Lawrence-Douglas County
P.O. Box 1072, Lawrence, Kansas 66044
October 23, 2005
Terry Riordan, Chairman
Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission
City Hall
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
RE: ITEMS NO. 7A, 7B, AND 7C: REZONING FROM PRD-1 TO POD-1, PRD-2 TO PCD-2, AND PCD-2 TO PCD-2, BAUER FARM, & 7D: PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR BAUER FARM.
Dear Chairman Riordan and Planning Commissioners:
The Bauer Farm development is different from any of the other planned developments approved in Lawrence, and we appreciate the more detailed review that you are giving it. It is a new, creative approach to mixed use development and we hope that, in some form, it will be successfully completed. However, because of the deviations from our current codes, the Bauer Farm Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) will require variances and waivers. There are also some procedural problems in the approval process that would prevent the plan adopted now from being guaranteed and predictable, and there is at least one condition placed on the previous zoning that is inapplicable and inappropriate to this development. There are also some unknowns and deficiencies in the PDP, some of which are more important than others. The planning staff has analyzed this plan thoroughly, but in addition we would like to list our concerns.
Procedural problem. Decision on the zoning districts is preceding the review and approval of the PDP. The rezoning should be considered following review and approval of the PDP, in order to know what conditions that are applicable to this development should be applied to the zoning. It is critical to guarantee certain conditions be placed on the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning districts with which this, or another PDP that might replace it, would have to comply.
Concerns about the Plan design.
1. The Plan should not vacate Champion Lane. Vacation of Champion Lane would prevent public transit from entering the interior of the development, defeating one of the purposes of mixed-use development, which is to provide easy accessibility to bus service. The staff has included additional reasons for not vacating Champion Lane. Driveway accesses should not be granted onto 6th Street and would be unnecessary if a frontage road were to give access to the project from Champion Lane.
2. There are no streets in the development. The “streets” in the development are not only private, but also are mainly parking lot aisles. The design of these parking aisles could make the development largely inaccessible to emergency vehicles, especially where the aisles are bordered by perpendicular parking.
3. There should be a condition on the zoning specifying housing and/or building types, uses, and locations. Building types are an integral part of the Plan design, but there is nothing specific noted as a condition or on the Plan that guarantees building type, use, and placement.
4. There should be guaranteed maintenance of common areas and property. The stormwater detention areas are not included as common open space. However, they and the private streets, sidewalks, common open space, and other common areas and property must have guaranteed maintenance. This should be provided for, and referenced, on the Plan and plats.
5. The hotel and conference center is an unknown, and use of that space should be better defined. Beyond a certain size, a hotel-conference use becomes a regional use and should not be included in this Community Center node.
Concerns about waiver and variance requests.
1. The variance request for less than a 50-foot set-back on 6th Street should be denied, as should the waiver request on the 35-foot setback required by the code for PRDs. The “New Urbanist” approach to encourage close building frontage facing onto thoroughfares does not apply to uses, especially residential uses, fronting on traffic-intense major arterials. A New Urbanist development along a thoroughfare would still separate and shield uses fronting on the street from the noise, dust, and pollution of intense traffic, either by including some major redesign of the arterial itself or by including a protected frontage road for local traffic and parking, and pedestrian uses. Moreover, it seems likely that 6th Street may have to be widened again in the future, substantially reducing the setback for any proposed townhouses fronting on 6th in the eastern portion of the development.
2. Reconsider reducing the 10-foot distance between the residential buildings in the eastern portion. Reducing the 10-foot distance between detached residential buildings should include consideration not only for fire safety, but also the needs for air circulation, light, and easy access between buildings for residents. Please consider these functions before allowing this reduction.
Reconsider one existing restriction on the zoning.
The limit on building size to 50,000 gross square feet is meaningless as a restriction. The restriction should have referred to structure size, instead. A “building” is defined in our zoning code as a “structure [covered by a roof] when…divided…by one or more walls unpierced by doors, windows, or similar openings and extending from the ground up, each part is deemed a separate building...” Rowhouses, for example, are separate townhouses that may extend for a block or more. Each townhouse is a separate building. This could also apply to commercial uses, which may consist of separate buildings with separate entrances in a single structure.
These are the main issues discussed by the Land Use Committee that may not have been emphasized in the Staff Report. We commend the staff for their thorough review of this Plan, but hope that you will also consider our concerns, as well.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Alan Black, Chairman Caleb Morse
Land Use Committee LWV L-DC Board