ITEM NO. 10:           SOUTHEAST AREA PLAN (SLD)

Conduct a public hearing on the draft Southeast Area Plan.  The plan generally includes the area bounded on the north by K10 (E. 23^rd Street); on the west by O’Connell Road (E 1600 Road); on the east by Noria Road (E 1750 Road); and on the south by the Wakarusa River floodplain.  The draft plan is available for viewing on or after 10-08-04 at the Lawrence/Douglas County Planning Office and at the department’s website http://www.lawrenceplanning.org/.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Day introduced the item, noting the maps associated with the plan were available for the public to view at the back of the room. She said the plan, as presented, acknowledged existing industrial activity and the CPC’s understanding of the Commission’s will that additional industrial land be added.

 

Ms. Day explained the Southeast Area Plan was reactivated in 2003 in response to concerns raised regarding development proposals for the subject area.  These concerns culminated with the development request for Farmland East and Farmland West. A portion of the Farmland West request was acted upon and the 55 cares involved in that action were deducted from the land use tables presented in the proposed area plan.

 

Staff described the boundaries of the planning area and pointed out the major transportation routes in the subject area.  Ms. Day identified a map error showing Franklin Road extending to the South Lawrence Trafficway (SLT).  She stated there was no proposed connection for Franklin Road to the SLT.

 

Ms. Day said the land use recommendations of the proposed plan corresponded generally with those of HORIZON 2020, showing a portion of low density residential and a larger section of mixed industrial uses referred to as an Employment Center.  The plan configured these areas based on the existing drainageway and the understood future SLT alignment.  Some portion of the plan area was in Service Area 4 of the Urban Growth Area, while those areas with identified land uses were in Service Area 1.

 

Staff presented land use configurations that would be appropriate based on the impact of existing uses in and around the plan area.  Ms. Day said much consideration had been given to need for and placement of a new elementary school based on how much of this area was dedicated to residential uses.  Discussions between the Comprehensive Plans Committee (CPC) and the School Board officials had concluded that the USD 497 Board did not feel there were be enough population generated in this area to warrant the placement of a new school.  Based on this discussion, the CPC did not designate a location for a new school within the study area.

 

Comm. Burress arrived at 5:45 p.m.

 

Staff referenced the connection of the drainageway into a 40-acre site designated as a future park.  The city had acquired this park area in anticipation of greenspace needs for this end of the community.  A joint park/school area was once considered a possibility, but there were currently no improvements planned for this parcel.  It was noted that the School Board did not agree with some planning concerns that the close proximity of collector and arterial streets was a detriment to the placement of schools.  The School Board viewed accessibility to the transportation network was an important benefit to a school.

 

Ms. Day referenced the substantial amount of land designated as an Employment Center, explaining that a definition for this land use was not yet written.  The term as discussed by the CPC was meant to convey something similar to a business park or light industrial center.  The Employment Center use was also intended to include some range of commercial and/or limited service uses for the employees of the center.  One commercial center was shown at the O’Connell & 23^rd Streets, with a smaller one proposed south of 25^th Street.

 

There was extensive Commission discussion about developing a definition for the term Employment Center.  Staff emphasized that this was a policy issue.  As such, it was not appropriate to introduce as a new concept in a use-specific area plan.  There was significant concern about dedication of a substantial portion of land to a land use that was not yet defined.

 

Staff was also concerned about the lack of appropriate land use transitions and described how the southern portion (east of Franklin Road) would be suitable for extending residential uses to the east.  Staff could support such an extension of residential uses across Franklin Road, with the existing drainageway providing the physical separation transition between this area and higher-intensity land uses to the north.

 

Ms. Day said one resident of the Prairie Park neighborhood had expressed specific opposition to expansion of the existing industrial land.  Other property owners had questioned Staff about the possibility of US Highway 59 realignment (along Franklin Road).  Ms. Day said realignment of US Highway 59 was not suggested in this plan, nor was it recommended by Staff or by KDOT.

 

In response to questioning, Ms. Day estimated the number of dwelling units that could be constructed within the acreage of land designated by this plan for residential uses.  Because density tended to range between 3-6 dwelling units per acre, total development density was estimated at 1300-2300 potential dwelling units with about 2600-4600 residents.

 

Also in response to questioning, Ms. Day said investigation of alternative uses for the land identified as future park land was included in the plan recommendations.

 

There was discussion about the traffic framework and its ability to handle the traffic generated by the amount of industrial land presented in this plan, which amount to about 60% of the overall area.  Staff stated that it was planned that a diamond interchange would be installed at Franklin Road and E. 23^rd Street.  It was noted that KDOT had given no estimation of when, if ever, a southwest bypass (eastern leg of Highway K-10) would be constructed.  Staff said this element (interchange of Franklin Road & K-10/23^rd Street) could be added as a recommendation of the area plan, along with a directive to look for alternative funding mechanisms.

 

Staff estimated about 10 trips per day per household for single-family development, pointing out this would vary depending on specific housing type and how far the residential areas were from commercial centers.  Staff was not prepared to make similar estimations for office uses, since trip generation varied greatly for that use.

 

Comm. Burress said he had spoken with several individuals about the Southeast Area Plan, and explained he did not consider this to be ex parte communications (which are precluded according to the Commission’s by-laws), because it did not involve a specific parcel.  In these discussions, it had been suggested that the Commission wait to act on the Southeast Area Plan until the ECO2 committee had completed its studies.  Ms. Day responded that Staff strongly encouraged the Commission to take action this evening on the area plan.  She listed a number of studies and projects that were delayed until land use decisions were made for the subject area.  She noted that the Commission was charged this evening with holding a public hearing on the proposed area plan.

 

Comm. Burress suggested that the plan, if approved, should be accompanied by a statement that elements in the plan were not to be automatically amended into HORIZON 2020, but they should be initiated for policy discussion.  Among these issues he listed the development of a definition for the term Employment Center, the possible construction of a bridge across the Kaw (Kansas) River, and the potential for an SLT/Franklin Road interchange. 

 

Until a policy discussion could be held regarding the definition of an Employment Center, Comm. Burress suggested replacing this term with the recognized and defined term(s) in HORIZON 2020, “Office/Research Office/Industrial”, along with a stipulated maximum density.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Beth Ann Mansur explained that a task force had been formed between various neighborhoods, including East Lawrence, Brookcreek and Barker, to discuss the proposed area plan.  She asked to relate general comments and concerns raised at the task force meetings, stressing that this was not to be construed as an official statement from any of the Neighborhood Associations.

 

Ms. Masur said the task force supported the idea of an Employment Center in concept, because:

• Additional housing would create a “nightmare” of cut through traffic for the existing Brookcreek and Barker neighborhoods, as well as East Lawrence.
• Additional housing will increase the property appraisals and taxes of existing homes
• Additional industrial uses will create additional jobs.

 

Ms. Mansur said one individual in the task force had said he would prefer not to have industrial uses on the east side of Franklin Road and he saw housing as the “lesser evil” of use alternatives, although he would like to see the area dedicated to greenspace.

 

The Commission was asked to consider a number of ideas:

• Move the major arterial status from Franklin Road to County Road 1059 or some other roadway.
• Create a greenspace buffer east of Franklin Road or turn Franklin Road into a multi-modal boulevard.
• Use a “campus-like” design for new development.
• Leadership in Energy and Environmental Sensitivity (LEES) design certification for new industrial development.

 

Ms. Mansur said the primary concern for many Brookcreek residents was the possibility of Franklin Road as the eastern connector, because this design would significantly increase traffic on Franklin Road to the north and into the neighborhood at 11^th & 15^th Streets.  They asked that the major connector be designed for N900 Road, which already had a connection to Highway K10.  Since this might not be good placement for the potential business park, the Broocreek residents asked for a guarantee that Franklin Road, as a major arterial, would not have exits at 11^th or 15^th Street.

 

Richard Heckler said he was asked to speak on behalf of Michael Sizemore, who could not attend tonight’s meeting.  Mr. Sizemore’s biggest concern was the allowance of sprawling development and how to maintain the expanding infrastructure.  As a resident of the Brookcreek neighborhood, Mr. Sizemore felt the area was already dealing with inadequate storm sewers and roads, and older schools were ill-maintained while there was talk of building new ones.

 

Mr. Heckler conveyed Mr. Sizemore’s support of the League of Women Voters’ position of new development, as well as LEES certification.

 

Mike Capra discussed why the area was suitable for affordable housing and asked the Commission to answer at this time his question about where affordable housing should go if so much of the southeast area were dedicated to industrial uses.  Comm. Burress responded by expressing his opposition to the term “affordable housing”, saying that “all houses are affordable to someone”.  He asked Mr. Capra to define what he meant in his use of the term “affordable”.  Chairman Haase asked that the speaker complete his statement before the Commission became involved in a question and answer session.

 

Mr. Capra said he would like to know which member of the Commission was passing around the false statement that US Highway 59 would someday pass through the area known as the Kitsmiller property.  

 

Mr. Capra stated that the entire area should be dedicated to residential uses, and that a buffer could be created with a bicycle trail.

 

Mr. Capra expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission should have “no say whatsoever” regarding projects that met the standards of HORIZON 2020.  He felt there should be no discussion of projects that met the guidelines and suggested that the Planning Commission was “on a power trip”, evidenced by their tendency to place additional conditions on many projects.

 

Chairman Haase informed Mr. Capra that his three minutes of public speaking time had elapsed.  Mr. Capra said his speaking time limits were nullified by Comm. Burress asking a question previously.

 

There was discussion that the Commission should not make it seem that they are not available for questions.  Chairman Haase stated that the public was welcome to pose questions in writing at anytime before the communications deadline.  He said it was appropriate for a speaker to “leave” questions with the Commission as part of his/her presentation, but should not expect an immediate response.  Discussion of speaker questions was appropriate during the Commission Discussion portion of the hearing.  Chairman Haase said it was not the point of the public hearing for speakers to “interrogate” the Commission and this kind of questioning was never appropriate.

 

Danny Drungilas, President of the Prairie Park Neighborhood Association, said the neighborhood would like to make it clear that they would oppose any plan to bring US Highway 59 up Franklin Road.  They acknowledged the intent for an interchange at US Highway K10, but they would like this to remain at Noria Road.  The association was encouraged by the fact that KDOT said no funding was available for such a change.

 

Mr. Drungilas said the Prairie Park residents would like to see the Kitsmiller property designated for residential uses.  They would be amenable to the proposed light industrial or business park use if they could be guaranteed that this use would not change.  The association was concerned that, if the land lay vacant for several years, the city would become lax in their standards and allow a more intense use to take over the area.

 

It was discussed that Highway K10 was currently aligned along 23^rd Street, but may someday re-align with the SLT.  It was clarified that, if this occurred, this was the 59/K10 interchange opposed by the neighborhood association.

 

John McGrew spoke as a partner in Bluejacket Ford LLC, the contract holders for the Kitsmiller property.  He stated his agreement that the city needed an optimum amount of industrial land in the right place. He referenced Comm. Burress’ concerns about the term “affordable housing”, and said this area was suitable for “more affordable” homes.  Mr. McGrew said the private sector was typically unable to support the lower strata housing projects without significant subsidies.

 

Mr. McGrew discussed in response to questions the estimated cost of one of the units the developer hoped to build on the Kitsmiller property (~$135,000), the average monthly payment (~$975) and the probable necessary annual household income (~$41,000).

 

Bill Newsome spoke as a partner in Eastside Acquisitions, applicants in the Fairfield Farms project (A.K.A. Farmland NE and Farmland NW located at O’Connell Road and 23^rd Street).  Mr. Newsome said he spoke before the Commission in the fall of 2003 in support of the land configuration then known as Option 2, and he still stood behind those comments.  Mr. Newsome said the Commission chose Option 1 in 2003 and that was the land use pattern being considered tonight.  Although his partnership did not feel this was a “perfect plan”, Mr. Newsome said no one could say the issue had not been given thorough review and the partnership would like to see the process move forward. 

 

Mr. Newsome pointed out that approval of the Southeast Area Plan was only the first step in a long process for developing the subject area.  The Preliminary Plat application for Fairfield Farms had been on hold since May 2003, waiting for an action on the area plan.  Mr. Newsome said it was fair and reasonable for the stakeholders in the project to expect the Commission to move forward in approving the area plan so the development process could proceed.

 

In response to questioning, Mr. Newsom showed the area contained in the Fairfield Farms plat and explained that the proposed plat was consistent with the land use recommendations in either Option 1 or Option 2.

 

Steve Glass, LRM Industries and PDO Investors, said both of the partnerships held substantial tracts within the southeast area.  He said their land was already zoned and platted, but he wished to comment on their experience with industrial development related to Franklin Business Park. 

 

Mr. Glass said he and the other investors had no desire to do another industrial development, because it was too costly and parcels stood vacant for too long.  He said only 3 of the 12 lots in the Franklin Business Park were occupied, and designating any additional land in the southeast area as industrial was tantamount to saying the area would not develop for a long time.  He said if this was the city’s intent, they should simply leave the land without a designation and let other areas develop with residential uses.

 

Mr. Glass said it was not economically feasible for the private sector to do industrial development in Lawrence, because providing infrastructure and holding the land for long periods of time was too costly.  He responded to questioning that he thought it unlikely that any other parties would try to develop additional industrial land in the southeast area.  If any new industrial projects were to be proposed, the Farmland property on the north side of E. 23^rd Street would provide the best transportation opportunities.

 

Mr. Glass asked if any thought had been given to where the children in the new residential development already approved within the plan area would go to school, since the Prairie Park Elementary School was at or near capacity.  He said he understood the School District had stated they did not intent to build a new school in this area and would shift their boundary lines to accommodate new students, but he also knew that intentions could change in time.

 

Mr. Glass suggested an alternate north-south dividing line directly south of Franklin Road, with residential uses to the south and industrial/business uses to the north.

 

Mr. Glass responded to questioning that it was important for the city to maintain an inventory of industrial land in a variety of sizes and locations.  He said that visibility, not price, was the biggest barrier to selling industrial land.  He explained it was difficult to sell industrial lots that were hard to see from the transportation network.

 

Chairman Haase called a 5-minute recess.  Meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m.

 

Betty Lichtwardt explained she was not speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters because their Land Use Committee had not been able to reach a decision about the proposed Southeast Area Plan.  She said this was because there were too many unresolved issues with the proposed plan, such as the location of a north-south bypass and the combination and pattern of potential land uses.

 

Ms. Lichtwardt expressed concern that heavy industrial uses close to the highway would isolate the area unless Franklin Road became a major arterial because it would not connect to the SLT.

 

Ms. Lichtwardt commented that Noria Road had been planned for years as a location for crossing the Kaw River.

 

Public Hearing closed at 7:40 p.m.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Chairman Haase outlined the possible actions that could be taken this evening.  One of these was attempting to refine the plan and approving in what the Commission hoped would be its final form.  He suggested this was not a realistic expectation and said he hoped the Commission would approve some form of the plan tonight and forward additional concerns or comments to Staff within the next 10 days.  It was noted that the City and County Commissions had requested a meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the Southeast Area Plan after the Planning Commission took action on the plan.

 

Comm. Burress said there were a number of changes the Commission could not draft final language for at this meeting.  He suggested Staff could draft such language before the joint meeting if it was settled that the Planning Commission was in general agreement about the changes.

 

Comm. Angino said he could not support the plan in its current configuration for multiple reasons:

• He felt the proposed plan contained too much industrial land and would force additional truck traffic onto roadways that were already congested (23^rd Street). 
• The city talks continuously about the importance of providing low-cost housing, but does nothing to aid its development and takes definite actions to discourage it on a regular basis.
• The proposed plan ignores the fact that there are approximately 460 acres of land nearby in the Farmland property that, once cleaned, will likely contain industrial uses. 
• There is repeated talk about converting the land to other uses if industrial uses are not marketable, but one industrial use would discourage residential uses on the other nearby lots.
• Industrial uses by the airport would be more appropriate because this would keep related truck traffic out of the city’s traffic patterns.

 

Comm. Angino said he liked the north-south division of land uses proposed by Mr. Glass.  He proposed deferring action on the plan or including the changes discussed as part of the approval.

 

Comm. Burress asked Staff to comment on the suggestion that the major arterial crossing the Kaw River be moved from Noria Road to Franklin Road.  Mr. Ahrens said that possibility had not been studied.  It might be feasible but would require additional study with the Transportation 2025 update.  He said both alignments involved building a road that does not exist across the river and through wide sections of the floodplain.  It was noted that an alignment east of Franklin Road would be more challenging and costly because it would cross more floodplain and require the elevation of more roadway.

 

Lynne Parman, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, responded to a number of questions from the Commission:

• Visibility is not one of the criteria being used in the ECO2 committee’s search for new industrial land.  Transportation accessibility is one of the criteria used in that study.
• One way to address visibility issues is with additional signage, but signs would have to follow the city’s Sign Code and would be subject to approval by KDOT.
• The City has approximately 250 acres of industrial land ready for tenancy in various locations and sized, spread across Douglas County.  This amounts to about 5 years’ worth of industrial property, at an average absorption rate of 20-35 acres per year.  The Chamber is concerned about dwindling inventories of industrial land because this kind of land use takes much longer to prepare for actual development.
• It would take a long time to describe the efforts of the Chamber to recruit the kinds of businesses Lawrence wanted to attract.
• A significant amount of the Chamber’s job growth efforts were centered on business retention and expansion.
• Data on industrial inquiries indicated that Lawrence was eliminated from consideration 30% of the time, with 54% of those eliminations based on the fact that an existing structure was not in place to fulfill the needs of the company.  13% of the eliminations were because there was not a suitable size parcel available.
• Industrial requests near the rail system were infrequent enough that they did not appear on study data.  The Chamber did not track requests for land near the airport.  Requests near interstate access were most frequent.
• The Farmland site is currently a brownfield and would have to become a greenfield to be marketable.
• The majority of business expansions taking place in Lawrence are happening within the existing building footprint.  They often involve improved technology and additional jobs without an increase in square footage or land area.

 

 

Comm. Burress made a number of comments:

• He said he was responsible for the idea that US Highway 59 would someday cut across the Kitsmiller property along Franklin Road .  He clarified that this was his personal opinion and did not reflect the consensus of the Commission or the intent of the Southeast Area Plan.
• He is increasingly “annoyed” with the School District making decisions about locating new schools without any input from the Planning Commission and very little input by the City Commission.
• It is clear that industrial development is not possible through the private sector alone, and some mechanism must be established for private/public cooperation for this kind of development.
• There is a misperception that “affordable” housing equates with “low income” housing.  There is a lot of development that is beyond the price range of a large number of residents but is considered “affordable” because it is less expensive than the local market standard.
• The proposed plan will add 1300-1600 new housing units, which he was prepared to consider adequate for the subject area.
• He would like the following elements incorporated into the plan:
  • The plan should address financing or public infrastructure.
  • There should be design standards to ensure a campus-style appearance of industrial and employment center development.
  • Franklin Road should be designed and improved as an attractive, multi-purpose boulevard.
  • The connection (bridge) to I-70 is of major concern and should be clearly stated as a high priority issue.
  • Buffering the homes on the southeast is an acceptable concept.
  • Signage on Highway K10 should be added to the recommendation to deal with the visibility issues raised by the public.
  • The undefined term Employment Center should be replaced with the term(s) defined in HORIZON 2020 of, “Office/Office Research & Industrial”.

 

Comm. Jennings’ comments were as follows:

·         The Sign Code will allow only 90 square feet of signage, which is not realistically effective in this location or for these uses.

·         KDOT officials have stated before that building a bridge across the Kaw River is going to be costly and complicated because of the surrounding floodplain.  They have no time horizon for it.

·         The School Board is looking at building larger schools, rather than smaller, neighborhood-centralized schools like the ones being discussed by the Planning Commission.

·         The city needs to encourage local employees to be local residents.  He hoped the proposed businesses would pay enough to allow workers to live in the proposed homes.

·         He was skeptical about Highway K10 becoming a viable transportation corridor for heavy truck traffic going south or west.

·         He was also skeptical about a heavy industrial use moving into the subject area, because he did not think this kind of use could “make it through the process”. 

·         An existing office research park (Oread West) was developed even though “experts stood here and told us it was not sellable.”  That park is located in a more suitable location than this area, but it is being filled in with residential uses. 

·         He opposed the plan but was in the minority of the CPC.  He would support more residential uses for the plan area.

 

Comm. Ermeling spoke:

• She understood from the meeting with KDOT that Highway K10 was expected to be the fastest-growing corridor in Kansas, although it was unknown where funding would come from.
• She suggested the City/County “become creative” in thinking about ways to build roads without KDOT funding”.  She said “if we are hot to make the K10 connection, we need to fund it and agree to make this a priority item.”
• She saw an intense need for office uses and jobs.
• She supported the idea of Franklin Road as a buffer to mitigate the abrupt change of uses on its east and west sides.
• She saw value in the concept of moving the arterial road connection to the east.
• Regarding visibility, she had experienced little difficulty in locating businesses within known business parks.

 

Comm. Angino said he could not support the plan in its current form and asked about the best process for making changes to the proposal.

 

Comm. Eichhorn made several points:

• Dedicating over 700 acres to a single, unmixed use was not supported by any of the planning documents at his disposal.
• The area is not served by any significant roads except K-10/23^rd Street.  He suggested setting aside land use choices until the roads were improved to adequately serve the area.
• Dedicating land to residential uses makes it more likely that infrastructure will be financed by private sources.
• Land cost is not the only factor determining housing prices.  Planning costs impact housing s costs as well.
• He disagreed that industrial uses had to be cooperatively financed.  An industrial development was proposed in 2003 by a private developer for the county but was denied.

 

Comm. Erichson suggested that additional residential development would be more detrimental than industrial uses, based on the potential trip generation and the school issue.

 

Comm. Lawson said he had heard no convincing reason why the Commission should approve this large amount of land for industrial/employment uses.  He agreed with Comm. Jennings logic that this amount of this kind of use would not be successful in this location.

 

Comm. Jennings commented that those willing to spend their own money providing infrastructure and developing the area favored residential uses.  With extensive industrial land as proposed, no developers were interested in the area and the city would need extensive tax dollars to finance infrastructure when the land mights stand vacant for many years.

 

Staff responded to questions about the process from this point.  The City and County Commissions had requested a joint meeting with the Planning Commission after the Planning Commission took action but before the item appeared on the City/County agendas.

 

Chairman Haase said a meeting was also scheduled by the County Commission for February 28^th to discuss and reconcile the Southeast Area Plan with the County access regulations and the recommendations of ECO2.  Comm. Angino expressed frustration that these were public meetings but only some members of the Commission were invited to attend, and they (the Planning Commission) were not given an opportunity to take an active part in the discussion.

 

It was verified that the County Commission had expressed real interest in the plan moving forward tonight.

 

Comm. Angino asked about modifying the plan according to the public recommendation for a north-south dividing line with residential uses to the south.  He suggested N1200 Road as the dividing line.  Chairman Haase said he would oppose this configuration because there were too many unanswered questions.  Among these questions were:

• What will adding a significant amount of residential development do to the transportation network?  He believed the impact would be far greater than if industrial uses were developed and expressed concern that a significant amount of residential users would travel back through the Prairie Park neighborhood.  He suggested a Transportation Impact Study was needed to address this question.
• How much employment center space is needed and where are these numbers coming from?  Using his own model based on a 2% population growth, he indicated a need for 1700 acres as a primary employment center.  With more population growth, an exponentially larger center would be needed.

 

Chairman Haase suggested the issue had not been studied well and expressed concern that Lawrence would become a ‘bedroom community’ if it did not provide a number of jobs equal to or greater than its growth rate.  He said he would submit a list of issues that needed more study, but in the meantime he would be comfortable supporting a plan that was in substantial conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.  He felt that the current configuration of the area plan met this criteria.

 

Chairman Haase said he had no information on whether the plan area would be suitable for residential development, but he was confident this would be a great location for any use relying on transportation.  He commented that the city would soon have a new wastewater treatment plant directly south of the plan area, which would gravity-serve a huge area further south.  He believed this indicated a large amount of residential development south of the Wakarusa River and suggested the city plan for the logical realities of the future.  One of these realities, in his opinion, was the need for a major arterial road in this area.

 

Comm. Angino said he would prefer an increase in the types of vehicles associated with residential development than the semi-trucks brought with industrial and business uses.  He added that cut-through traffic of regular cars would increase if the major raods were taken up by additional truck traffic.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to approve the Southeast Area Plan and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval in the configuration presented, with the following changes:

·         Addition of language about financing public infrastructure;

·         Addition of language stating that design standards will be developed to ensure the Employment Center has a “campus” look;

·         Franklin Road shall be designed as a multi-modal transportation boulevard

·         Development of a plan for constructing a bridge across the Kaw River;

·         Addition of language about connectivity to I-70 and the statement that timing is a high priority issue;

·         Addition of signage on Highway K10 to address visibility concerns for businesses in the subject area; and

·         Replacement of all references to the undefined term Employment Center to the term(s) defined in the Comprehensive Plan, Office/Office Research & Industrial.

 

After discussion, the motion was modified without objection to include the ‘triangle’ of land east of Franklin Road for residential use as proposed by Staff.

 

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Comm. Burress said he would accept the change to the motion even though he felt it was difficult to justify the “dab of residential [land]” being added, because providing moderate-income housing was an important goal.

 

Comm. Eichhorn said he would oppose the motion because he felt the plan, even as modified, did not include enough residential land.

 

 

 

 

ACTIONS TAKEN

Revised motion on the floor was to approve the Southeast Area Plan and forward it to the City Commission and the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval in the configuration shown with the following modifications:

·         Addition of language about financing public infrastructure;

·         Addition of language stating that design standards will be developed to ensure the Employment Center has a “campus” look;

·         Franklin Road shall be designed as a multi-modal transportation boulevard

·         Development of a plan for constructing a bridge across the Kaw River;

·         Addition of language about connectivity to I-70 and the statement that timing is a high priority issue;

·         Addition of signage on Highway K10 to address visibility concerns for businesses in the subject area; and

·         Replacement of all references to the undefined term Employment Center to the term(s) defined in the Comprehensive Plan, Office/Office Research & Industrial.

·         Designation of residential land uses for the triangle of land east of Franklin Road identified by Staff.

 

          Motion failed, 3-6, with Comm.’s Burress, Ermeling and Krebs voting in favor.   Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition.

 

Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Lawson to approve the Southeast Area Plan and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, with the following modification to the land use configuration:

 

• All land south of 28^th Street, on both the east and west sides of Franklin Road, shall be designated for a mixture of residential land uses.

 

          Motion failed, 4-5, with Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Jennings and Lawson voting in favor.  Comm.’s Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase and Krebs voted in opposition.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Chairman Haase stated his personal preference for approving the plan as presented, while including in the record a number of elements for further study and possible amendment into the plan at a later date.  Among these elements he included Comm. Burress’ list of concerns and suggestions and encouraged the Commissioners to forward additional comments to Staff.  Comm. Ermeling said this suggestion seemed to “address all the neighborhood concerns.”

 

Chairman Haase said he was unconvinced that residential uses were suitable east of Franklin Road.  He recognized that, in Staff’s opinion, it was not appropriate to develop Franklin Road as a land use separator.  However, he felt the road would “serve this purpose admirably if done right.” 

 

Comm. Jennings noted the previous reference in Commission discussion to a “dab of residential” east of Franklin Road.  He pointed out that this was a parcel of significant size that would accommodate roughly 800 homes.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to approve the Southeast Area Plan and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval with the land configuration shown and with the following modifications:

·         Addition of language about financing public infrastructure;

·         Addition of language stating that design standards will be developed to ensure the Employment Center has a “campus” look;

·         Franklin Road shall be designed as a multi-modal transportation boulevard

·         Development of a plan for constructing a bridge across the Kaw River;

·         Addition of language about connectivity to I-70 and the statement that timing is a high priority issue;

·         Addition of signage on Highway K10 to address visibility concerns for businesses in the subject area; and

·         Replacement of all references to the undefined term Employment Center to the term(s) defined in HORIZON 2020, “Office/Office Research & Industrial”.

 

          Motion carried 5-4, with Comm.’s Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase and Krebs voting in favor.  Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition.

 

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Chairman Haase repeated his encouragement that the Commissioner’s send additional comments and concerns to Staff.