LAWRENCE•KS

C H A M B E R of C O M M E R C E

First, every new commercial development is already required to undergo "the review of a specific proposal." To suggest otherwise is to render the remaining sixteen Sections of the Development Code, consisting of more than 300 pages of text, to be superfluous. The stated purpose of the proposed revision is adequately addressed by the remaining Sections of the Development Code, as adopted. Absent a legitimate issue, there is no reason for the Planning Commission to even attempt to fashion a remedy for something that is not broken.

Second, without further study or analysis, there is at least one existing retail establishment, if not more, currently located in a CS zoning district that meets the criteria of a large retail establishment. If the proposed revision is adopted, all such existing retail uses will be rendered nonconforming under the Development Code. The negative implications of this nonconforming status are substantial. It may become virtually impossible for such an existing property to be refinanced, redeveloped or expanded. This nonconforming status will also have a negative affect on the market value, as well as the overall marketability, of such an existing property. Finally, the owner of such a property may be required by an existing lender to purchase additional insurance coverage to insure against the possibility of a loss due to governmental regulation, and the cost of this additional insurance coverage must be either absorbed and/or passed through to the consumers in our community.

Third, the proposed change in the use table for CS zoned property to require a special use permit for large retail establishment will frustrate several provisions of Horizon 2020. For example:

1. Chapter 6 of Horizon 2020 describes the commercial corridor along South Iowa Street as a regional commercial center, serving shopping and entertainment needs within our community. A substantial portion of this South Iowa regional commercial center is zoned CS. Requiring a special use permit, which may be limited to a specific period of time (see Section 20-1306(i) of the Development Code), virtually assures that no future large retail establishment can occur within the South Iowa regional commercial center, or any other CS zoned areas

2. Policy 1.4 of the Horizon 2020 commercial land use goals and policies states that existing commercial areas should be redeveloped, and that we should even consider financial and development incentives to encourage re-use (renovation or redevelopment) of commercial properties. Requiring a special use permit for large retail establishment uses will actually discourage, rather than encourage, such re-use and redevelopment of existing commercial areas.

3. Policy 3.3 of the Horizon 2020 transportation goals and policies states that our community should encourage, not discourage, consolidation of driveways along principal arterial streets and commercial corridors. Requiring a special use permit for large retail establishment uses will actually discourage, rather than encourage, such consolidation of existing commercial areas.

734 Vermont, Ste. 101 PH 785.865.4411

Post Office Box 586 FX 785.865.4400

Lawrence, Kansas 66044 lawrencechamber.com

LAWRENCE •KS

C H A M B E R of C O M M E R C E

It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine any scenario where a retail establishment would make a multi-million dollar investment in our community, or could even obtain financing approval for such an investment, if that investment was jeopardized by a special use permit requirement. There has been no finding or other determination that large retail development within CS zoned districts warrants the artificial constraint of a special use permit. In fact, all evidence and Horizon 2020 are to the contrary. Horizon 2020 encourages redevelopment, infill opportunities, and consolidation along commercial corridors. Requiring a special use permit frustrates these objectives, and we ask that the Planning Commission not adopt this revision.

Agenda Item No. 19G;
Objection to Market Impact Analysis Revision;
Development Code Section 20-1107

This revision to the Development Code proposes several substantive text amendments to Section 20-1107 of the Development Code, regarding the criteria for a retail market impact analysis. Unlike the revision to Section 20-403 discussed above, no reasoning or explanation of the need for these changes is provided, except to suggest that the changes were drafted by an Ad Hoc sub-committee. In the alternative, a staff text amendment has been proposed to delete subsections (c) and (d) of Section 20-1107 in their entirety, with the added staff comment that this change provides authority to require a market impact analysis, but leaves the discussion of criteria to a future date and time. This alternative staff text amendment leaves a gaping hole in the Development Code, and suffice it to say that no revision would be preferable to this arrangement. The remainder of my remarks are directed towards the Ad Hoc sub-committee revisions.

In theory, Section 20-1107 of the Development Code was adopted to codify the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Policy 3.11 of the Horizon 2020 commercial land use goals and policies). However, as adopted Section 20-1107 grossly distorts the concept of a market impact analysis embodied within the Comprehensive Plan, and this distortion is further exaggerated by the proposed revisions. Policy 3.11 of the Horizon 2020 commercial land use goals and policies provides, as follows: "Proposals to create any shopping district that, when considering the entire node, will result in greater than 150,000 gross square feet of commercial building space shall include an independent market analysis. Initial development proposals of 50,000 gross square feet or less on any single corner are exempt from this market analysis requirement, but will be limited to one exemption per corner of the intersection." (Emphasis added).

734 Vermont, Ste. 101 PH 785.865.4411

Post Office Box 586 FX 785.865.4400

Lawrence, Kansas 66044 lawrencechamber.com

LAWRENCE •KS

C H A M B E R of C O M M E R C E

Contrary to Horizon 2020, Section 20-1107 of the Development Code, as drafted, requires a market impact analysis for any application for site plan or zoning that could result in 50,000 square feet or more of added retail space in the City. Horizon 2020 clearly states that a market impact analysis is required for shopping districts that create greater than 150,000 gross square feet of retail space, and that the first 50,000 square feet are exempt from this requirement.

The proposed revisions before the Planning Commission (i) extends the requirement for a market impact analysis to development plan applications, (ii) grants broad authority to the Planning Commission, the City Commission, and the planning staff to require additional information, and (iii) grants exclusive authority to the Planning Director to select the consultant. These revisions are contrary to the language of Policy 3.11 of the Horizon 2020 commercial land use goals and policies.

If the City maintains a list of approved independent consultants, what possible difference could it make to the City if the applicant, who is paying for the study, gets to pick the consultant? If the independent consultants are approved by the City in the first place, logic suggests that the City should prefer to distance itself from the actual selection process for liability reasons, not to mention the fact that Policy 3.11 of the Horizon 2020 commercial land use goals and policies states that "[t]he independent consultant that performs the market study shall be chosen by the city and agreed upon by the entity submitting the proposal for the shopping center." (Emphasis added). The applicant must bear the cost of the market study and, therefore, should be allowed to select the certified consultant on a cost-competitive basis.

Last July, in a letter to then Mayor Dennis "Boog" Highberger, the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce urged that this Section of the Development Code be deleted in its entirety for several reasons. By including this provision in the Development Code, the City is making a determination of what it thinks the market will bear, contrary to a free-market society. In addition, preventing development if there is a vacancy rate greater than 8% prevents Owners from developing property in anticipation of falling vacancy rates. Finally, Horizon 2020 is a planning guide, and not every section of Horizon 2020 lends itself to being codified within the Development Code.

One of the oft stated principles in support of the adoption of the new Development Code, succinctly stated, was to simplify and instill a sense of certainty in the development process. With all due respect to the Planning Commission and the planning staff, establishing additional layers of governmental regulation and bureaucracy hardly seems an appropriate response to this stated principal. The requirement for a market impact analysis is contrary to this very principle, and the proposed revisions to Section 20-1107 further destroy any ideals of simplification and/or

734 Vermont, Ste. 101 PH 785.865.4411

Post Office Box 586 FX 785.865.4400

Lawrence, Kansas 66044 lawrencechamber.com

LAWRENCE •KS

C H A M B E R of C O M M E R C E

certainty into the development process. We ask that the Planning Commission not adopt these proposed revisions and, further, that the Planning Commission delete Section 20-1107 of the Development Code in its entirety.

Agenda Item No. 20;
Objection to Standards for Retail Impact Studies

Consistent with our request that the Planning Commission delete Section 20-1107 of the Development Code in its entirety, the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce opposes the adoption of the proposed standards for retail impact studies as identified in the Ad Hoc committee memo dated February 15, 2006.

Policy 3.11 of the Horizon 2020 commercial land use goals and policies expressly provides in subsection B, as follows: "The project shall not be approved if the market study indicates the commercial project or any proposed phase cannot be absorbed into the community within three years from the date of its estimated completion, or that it would result in a community-wide retail vacancy rate of greater than eight percent." (Emphasis added). The proposed revisions to Section 20-1107 of the Development Code, together with the proposed standards for retail impact studies, ignore the plain language of Horizon 2020 which refers to a community-wide vacancy rate, and extends the concept of a market impact analysis to a "disaggregated set of retail sectors" and a "geographical disaggregation for each sector."

Horizon 2020 does not state, or even suggest, that individual retail sectors or geographic areas of the community are to be included in a market impact analysis. If a market impact analysis is required at all, it should be limited to the "community-wide vacancy rate" expressly referred to in Horizon 2020.

Retail activities in Lawrence generate a significant dollar amount of sales tax revenue and ad valorem property tax revenue for the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, and USD 497. A recent memo, dated April 4, 2006, from Casey Libst, City Budget Manager, addressed to David Corliss, Interim City Manager, discusses a comparison of ad valorem property tax rates among the top ten largest cities in Kansas. The memo goes on to compare data provided by the League of Kansas Municipalities (the "League"). A review of this data reveals that Lawrence is below the mean in all categories reported by the League. This data also shows that Lawrence has the highest percentage of property assessed at the residential property tax assessment rate, and the lowest percentage of property assessed at a higher, non-residential rate.

In January, 2006, Development Strategies, Inc. ("DSI"), reported its findings of the recently completed inventory of retail establishments in the City of Lawrence. The findings

734 Vermont, Ste. 101 PH 785.865.4411

Post Office Box 586 FX 785.865.4400

Lawrence, Kansas 66044 lawrencechamber.com

LAWRENCE•KS

CHAMBER of COMMERCE

reported by DSI show that Lawrence ranks last among peer review communities in the ratio of retail sales to effective buying income. Furthermore, Lawrence ranked second to last among peer review communities in retail sales pull factors.

The property tax data provided by the League, and the retail findings reported by DSI, suggest that Lawrence is under-retailed as a community, and has considerable potential to support additional retail expansion. The adoption of the proposed standards for retail impact studies as identified in the Ad Hoc committee memo dated February 15, 2006, is contrary to the data and findings provided by the League and DSI. As a community, our development policies, including the Development Code, should be directed towards attempting to encourage additional retail development, rather than creating barriers to such expansion.

We look forward to discussing these issues with you and answering any questions that you might have. If I may be of any assistance, or if you require any additional information, please call me.

Very truly yours,

LAWRENCE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Lavern Squier, President

cc: Tom Jennings Grant Eichhorn Dennis Lawson Holly Krebs

John Haase

Marguerite Ermeling

Susan Erickson David Burress Lisa Harris

734 Vermont, Ste. 101 PH 785.865.4411

Post Office Box 586 FX 785.865.4400

Lawrence, Kansas 66044 lawrencechamber.com

League of Women Voters of Lawrence-Douglas County

P.O. Box 1072, Lawrence, Kansas 66044

April 16, 2006

Dr. Terry Riordan, Chairman

Members

Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission

City Hall

Lawrence, Kansas 66044

RE: ITEM NO. 19: ADOPTION OF REVISIONS TO DEVELOPMENT CODE, NOVEMBER 11, 2005 EDITION.

Dear Chairman Riordan and Planning Commissioners:

Attached please see our requested revisions to the modifications recommended in the Staff Report. The item numbers, pages, and sections of the requested changes are listed below and explained in more detail in the attachment.

ITEM NO. 19A, Text amendments to various sections of Chapter 20; TA-03-02A-06:

Page 2-2, Section 20-202(a)(1): Strikeout the word ~~predominantly.~~

ITEM NO. 19E, Text amendments to Article 7, Planned Developments; TA-03-02E-06:

Page 7-2, Section 20-701(f)(1)(ii): Add language from Ordinance 3500, Article 10, Planned Unit Development, Section 20-1004.1 RESTRICTION OF USES AND BUILDING TYPES.

Page 7‑4, Section 20-701(j)(1): Add language: “building type”.

ITEM NO. 19H: Text amendments to 20-1304 regarding the criteria for Major Changes to Final Development Plans, TA-03-02H-06:

Page 13-24, Section 20-1304(e)(2)(iv)h:. Change and add language: “changes a ~~non~~-residential Building type or non-residential structure by more than 10% in size.

TERMINOLOGY, ADDITIONAL DEFINITION: CONNECTOR STREET: We ask that you also include a definition for “CONNECTOR STREET” in the Terminology section.

We hope that you will look upon these requested changes favorably.

Sincerely yours,

Alan Black, Chairman Caleb Morse

Land Use Committee LWV L-DC Board

Please see ATTACHMENT below.

ATTACHMENT

REQUESTED REWORDING FOR THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TABLE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF NOVEMBER 11, 2005 EDITION

April 16, 2006

Page 2‑2, Section 20-202(a)(1) Revisions Table reads: “Clarify purpose: The primary purpose of the RS Districts is to accommodate predominantly single detached Dwelling Units on individual Lots.” Please strike the word ~~predominantly.~~

Explanation: The term “predominantly” jeopardizes the “primary purpose “of the single family (RS) districts by making it uncertain. The Special Use Permit allows other specific uses in the district, as is the case for all zoning districts, and allows them to be planned into the district so that it is not an exclusively one-use district.

Page 7‑4, Section 20-701(j)(1). To the sentence following “Development within 60 feet of the peripheral boundary of a PD shall be limited to the following:” please add: (1) use category, Building type, Heights, Setbacks and minimum Lot sizes permitted in the Zoning District immediately adjoining the proposed PD on the date of the preliminary development plan approval of the PD;...”

Explanation: The addition of the term “category” to the term “use” doesn't substitute for “building type.” The term “use category” is even less restrictive than the term “use,” because “category” in its broadest sense means the general terms of “residential, commercial, industrial, or office, etc.” In order for a specific use or building type to be compatible with adjacent single family dwellings, it must be the same scale, including bulk and height, as the built single family dwellings, but the single family homes are rarely built to the maximum scale allowed in single family districts except in historic districts.

Page 13‑24, 1304(e)(2)(iv)h Strikeout “~~non~~” from “residential Building type,” and add “or a non-residential structure” so that it reads, “h. Changes a residential building type or a non-residential structure by more than 10% in size.”

Explanation: This would prohibit increasing the size of any building or structure more than 10% beyond what was approved by the preliminary development plan. As the wording originally reads, it does not address the real need, which is to avoid unexpected increases in the bulk of residential buildings, as happened in Meadowbrook, or increasing the square footage of commercial buildings beyond that approved in the Preliminary Development Plan.

Please note: The following is not shown in the Table as subject to change, but we believe this is extremely important. We only recently realized the limitations of the term “use” and the significance of not increasing the options for conditioning PDs. The following is copied from the Draft Code:

Page 7-2, PDF page 126. 20-701 PD, Planned Development Overlay District

“(f) Standards Eligible for Modification

The City Commission may modify the following standards during the PD approval

process. Standards not listed are not eligible for modification.

(1) Allowed Uses

”The Planning Commission shall recommend, and the City Commission shall approve, a list of uses allowed in a PD at the time of PD preliminary approval. Regardless of the fact that the approved uses may be determined by reference to a Base District, the list of approved uses shall be incorporated into and made a condition of the PD approval. The City Commission may approve only uses that are allowed in the Base District, provided that:”

Comment: We recently realized that the term “uses” limits the restrictions that the Planning and City Commissions can place on a preliminary development plan. This means that restrictions in bulk, building size and type, square footage (in the case of retail uses), and a wide range of other issues that currently may be restricted in PUDs cannot legally be restricted in the PD Overlay District based on the new Land Development Code language. For this reason, we ask that you add to the present language, the current language of the PUD ordinance, Section 20-1004.1. The language in the new Land Development Code would then read:

(1) Allowed Uses

The Planning Commission shall recommend, and the City Commission shall approve, a list of uses allowed in a PD at the time of PD preliminary approval. Regardless of the fact that the approved uses may be determined by reference to a Base District, the list of approved uses shall be incorporated into and made a condition of the PD approval. In addition as a condition of approval, the Planning Commission or City Commission may designate any specific use, structure or building type which shall be restricted and or excluded as part of the PD Overlay Zoning District. The City Commission may approve only uses that are allowed in the Base District, provided that:

Please also add a definition for Connector Street in the Terminology Section.

A comment on the term “Residential Collectors”:

Page 17‑4, 1701 The definition of “Residential Collectors” was modified (we understood) to allow them to function as connectors, but this definition does not accomplish that. Connectors by definition connect uses, but in this definition residential collectors only connect streets‑‑ “thoroughfares”‑‑ so the definition here will not substitute for the needed definition and function of connector streets. Please add a definition for connector streets.