ITEM NO. 11 CPA-2004-02 (AAM) audio 1:18:35
CPA-2004-02: Consider revision to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 7: Industrial and Employment Related Land Use.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Amy Miller presented the item. Complete details of the project were included in the staff report.
She recommended approval with two staff changes.
Commissioner Harris asked why the Industrial Committee removed prime farm land from the locational criteria.
Ms. Miller said that the sentiment of the Industrial Sub-Committee was that it should be removed from the general locational criteria partly because it would be a complete change in how it has been handled in other chapters of Horizon 2020. She went on to say that part of the problem was defining prime agricultural farmland and that the Committee felt that it did not lend itself very well to general locational criteria.
Commissioner Moore said that the Committee spent about two months trying to fully define what it was. He did not feel it was consistent to have it in the Industrial Chapter when it was not in the other chapters.
PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Jane Eldredge, went over the issues she wrote a letter about that was included in the Planning Commission online packet.
Mr. Charles NovoGradac, of Chestnut Orchard, suggested language for Horizon 2020 to tighten up some of the unclear language regarding prime farmland. (He gave Ms. Miller a letter after the correspondence deadline, which he read from at the meeting.)
Ms. Nancy Thellman, discussed UGA boundaries. She asked for the language in Chapter 7 to be kept regarding prime farmland. She agreed with Charles NovoGradac’s letter. She also said that if they want developers to see environmental issues it should be easily found in one place instead of thinking that people will cross reference.
Ms. Marguerite Ermeling, suggested some wording changes, including quantifying the word “substantially” with respect to the general location criteria, as well applying the sentence in the Airport site paragraph that starts with “As this area develops…” to all sites and retaining the last sentence in the I-70 and K-10 site.
Ms. Gwen Klingenberg, Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, felt that protection of prime farmland should be added to all chapters of Horizon 2020. She said that the Farmer Turnpike/I-70 interchange was a gateway to Lawrence and Lecompton, and felt that the word ‘gateway’ should be added to all locations. She expressed concerns regarding infrastructure cost.
Ms. Barbara Clark, Grant Township resident, expressed concerns. She felt that the definition of prime farmland should be narrowed in scope. She showed a map of the prime soil in Douglas County.
Ms. Betty Lichtwardt, League of Women Voters, expressed concerns about the effects of industrial use on growth. She was concerned about residential sprawl.
Mr. Michael Almon, Sustainability Action Network, expressed concerns regarding sustainability of the food network.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired about Ms. Eldredge’s letter in which she suggested the removal of the sentence regarding the Union Pacific Railroad Corridor “Where consolidation of industrial sites is impractical, it is recommended those properties be converted to residential and/or neighborhood commercial uses.” He asked if the committee had discussed it.
Ms. Miller said that the committee had not discussed that because it was similar language that existed in the original Chapter 7 and also similar to some of the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan language.
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired about the significance of gateway language.
Ms. Miller read the Transportation 2030 K-10/I-70 site language that says ‘in the future this area will be an important gateway to the City that has the opportunity to develop as a work/live campus type center or industrial business research park.’ She stated that when Transportation 2030 was created they did not necessarily have the foresight of this version of Chapter 7 but that it was identified as a major gateway.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked about special criteria for gateways.
Mr. McCullough stated that there were no standards for gateways; it connotates special aesthetics or special consideration.
Commissioner Eichhorn inquired about setbacks.
Mr. McCullough stated that the Gateways and Boulevards Committee was created to discuss these issues.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that when going through the area plan process, the area is going to be a gateway of some sort so it would be logical that the language stay in there.
Mr. McCullough said that it is the third of three interchanges with an interstate highway so Transportation 2030 recognizes that.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked about the I-70/K-10 plan saying ‘work/live campus’ but does not mention ‘warehouse or office.’ He wondered if that was intentional.
Ms. Miller said that it was intentional because they hope the area will be developed as a park in the future.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked about the staff recommended changes to the prime farmland paragraph. He did not feel that was a definition since it says ‘generally defined as’. Previously it said ‘primary’ and he asked why staff was recommending this change.
Ms. Miller said that the staff recommended change was in response to Mr. NovoGradac’s letter and that staff felt re-wording that paragraph made it clearer to understand.
Commissioner Jennings inquired about Mr. McCullough mentioning the third turnpike entrance as a gateway. He stated that no improvements have been made north of the turnpike on either of the other two entrances. He was trying to figure out why people would turn north rather than south at this interchange.
Mr. McCullough said that the sector plan being done for the northwest area shifts that urbanization north of the highway to the west side and therefore development will eventually be north of the interstate. Also, there is nothing that would preclude development going north of the interstate in Grant Township.
Commissioner Harris asked staff to comment on Mr. NovoGradac’s comment about the site around the airport seemed to be talking about the Pine’s area.
Ms. Miller replied, no, it talks about it in a general sense. The language that was settled on was 230+ acres and identified with general boundaries. The language says that the area around the airport is best suited for industrial development generally lies southwest of the airport and north of I-70. She said that it was talked about in a general sense on purpose.
Commissioner Harris asked if there was a reason that southwest was chosen instead of southeast.
Ms. Miller said that part of it lies in the transportation network aspect. She said that they looked at general criteria that showed buffers around the interchanges at specific intervals and that would have been outside of that. In addition, there was more floodplain on the eastern side that would have limited large parcel development.
Commissioner Harris felt that it might be premature to identify K-10/I-70 when the project is not a done deal at this time.
Mr. McCullough said that there have been some requests in process so it has given the opportunity to judge them by locational criteria.
Ms. Miller said in looking at the sites they looked at it not only in a perspective of what has been seen and heard, but also from starting from scratch and looking at the general locational criteria. The acreage was specifically identified because it met those locational criteria.
Commissioner Hird asked about the last sentence of the I-70 description.
Ms. Miller said the intent in the future is to develop it as a park or work/live campus type setting.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that the sector plan being discussed had more than 150 acres.
Ms. Miller said that was correct.
Commissioner Lawson asked why the reference to warehouse distribution was being excluded.
Ms. Miller said that in the future they would like to see it developed as a whole, one plan working together, not fragmented parcels. She said they liked the idea of co-location.
Mr. McCullough said the amount of land at the sector plan in its draft form lays out as an industrial employment center so there will be the opportunity for a mixture of industrial uses which could include warehouse distribution centers or work/live type campus centers. The best case scenario for good urbanization for that area would be an employment center that could include thousands of people working in that area when at full build out over many years. The work/live campus centers would be a good concept at some point in that area.
Commissioner Harris asked about adding gateway language and interfacing language to each new industrial site.
Ms. Miller said that gateway language was included in the Airport site and the I-70 & K-10 site. Other sites were identified as happening farther out in the future so there was no language in those sections. Ms. Miller said she was not sure about the interfacing language.
Commissioner Harris said that there is a sentence regarding interfacing language that talks about having the industrial site interface with the surrounding development as it develops.
Commissioner Finkeldei said it is in the final sentence under Airport. Interfacing with surrounding properties and neighborhoods are also encouraged. He asked if that was true for every site.
Mr. McCullough said that is true for everybody.
Mr. Miller said there was similar language in the opening goals and policies as well.
Commissioner Finkeldei felt that language should be in the front of Horizon 2020 instead of every chapter.
Commissioner Moore said that if the land is valued because it is a resource then the future use should not matter to the fact that it is a resource.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that the reason it would be put as a locational requirement would be to keep industrial development from prime agricultural farmland. He questioned if the goal was to exclude industrial development on agricultural prime farmland or was the goal to exclude development of prime agricultural farmland. He clarified what Commissioner Moore was saying that if the goal was to protect prime farmland, putting it in the locational requirement of the industrial chapter does not get you to that goal. It should be somewhere in Horizon 2020 as a community goal to preserve prime farmland from soccer fields, residential development, commercial development, airports, wastewater treatment plants, etc.
Commissioner Lawson said it is valued as a resource and they need to take the first step of understanding that value by establishing it as a locational criteria for this and all future related development.
Commissioner Carter asked if it was realistic criteria. He wondered if they map it out and say it is locational criteria would there be any industrial sites left.
Commissioner Lawson said there is a big gap in understanding the definition proposed with respect to the specificity of the two classes of soils. Soil classes were established many years ago with a very scientific approach. He felt that the soil had real true economic value.
Commissioner Finkeldei said he was not struggling with protecting prime farmland, the issue was where to put it, as general locational or specific criteria. To protect the land the best it should be in the specific criteria in the site plan. He felt that based on what they were discussing tonight, to protect the land, the airport would be eliminated from the plan.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that the general locations were succinct. By having language that says ‘lies out of prime agricultural land’ would be very succinct and direct and move someone on to another area quickly. He felt that by putting it in the general criteria would move someone down the line quicker.
Commissioner Finkeldei felt that if they are trying to protect something then it should be as specific as possible.
Commissioner Carter was concerned about the difference between a goal and specific criteria. If you take type 1 and 2 soils on a map and looked at where it might make sense then it could completely eliminate industrial growth. He supported the goal but was not ready to make it a criteria without knowing more.
Commissioner Jennings had no interest in paving over prime farmland. He was concerned about certain property being a certain percent of prime farmland. He felt that an unpractical small corner piece of prime farmland might exclude that land from being developed.
Commissioner Eichhorn said the general criteria would be of adequate parcel size, generally over 40 acres.
Commissioner Moore inquired about the K-10/I-70 class 2 soil being 40% of the site.
Ms. Miller said that in the March version of Chapter 7 prime agricultural farmland noted for each site and what percentage. It did not follow the specific definition that limits it to class 1 and 2 soils. The definition from NRCS includes more than just class 1 and 2 soils. So, it would not be an apples to apples comparison.
Commissioner Lawson said the quality of class 1 and 2 soils are of greater productivity and economic value than others.
Commissioner Jennings said that prime farmland will not be found at the top of a hill and that is where this location is at.
Commissioner Hird was frustrated by all the different definitions and maps for prime farmland. He said that prime farmland was important to the community. He also expressed concern about excluding consideration of any particular site.
Commissioner Harris said that when they first started talking about this topic that she recommended those sites be mapped and see what they came up with. If they did not find any industrial sites then they would need to reconsider it. She thought that it would be worth the time to see what it would look like.
Commissioner Blaser was concerned about excluding consideration of any particular site. He felt that industrial land was needed but that soil needed to be included in site specific criteria. He agreed with Commissioner Hird’s frustrations. He agreed with staffs suggestion of inserting the language in the section where proposed. He felt that it gave the Planning Commission the flexibility to recognize that it is a more important consideration at some sites and less of a consideration at other sites. He said it could be based on percentages of prime farmland or type of soil and felt that the Planning Commission needed the flexibility. He felt that staffs solution tackled that and adequately expressed the concern about this being a valid consideration.
Commissioner Harris said that if they really want to protect the land they need to be serious about having a mechanism to do it. She agreed that there are some instances when they might want to look at what percentage of the project is prime farmland and then make a determination that way.
Commissioner Blaser felt that they had to include soil as site specific to protect class 1 and 2 soils.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that if the goal is to protect prime farmland from development, the way to do that is not to define it in Horizon 2020, but rather add prime farmland to the Development Code.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that they do not follow all the policies in Horizon 2020, it is a general guideline. If the emphasis is on prime farmland then it needs to be put it in as many places as possible.
Commissioner Carter agreed with Commissioner Harris on seeing a map of sites.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if class 1 and 2 soils could be defined and how long that would take to add a text amendment to the chapter.
Ms. Miller recapped what direction the Planning Commission wanted staff to take: adopting chapter as presented, have staff look at an actual definition, incorporating that into the general locational criteria and bringing it back to Planning Commission with a map for discussion. She said that this would work best by bringing it back as a discussion item to get feedback and then make changes based on that direction. She stated that depending on what the Planning Commission decided to do it could change a lot of the wording in the chapter. Ms. Miller said the soonest that it could come back to the Planning Commission would be July.
Commissioner Harris agreed with the League of Women Voter’s that the proximity to transportation language was not as specific as it could be. She wondered if the wording ‘feasible access’ would work better. Commissioner Harris also said she liked keeping the gateway language for Lecompton.
Commissioner Harris felt that interfacing language should be added to overarching goals. She liked the goal of I-70 and K-10 being a campus area in the future but assumed that any zoning would trump that goal.
Mr. McCullough said that the zoning would hopefully reflect what the plan puts forth as the zoning and development together. He said that there should be discussion from Planning Commission whether or not warehousing distribution should be incorporated in there. He stated that they do not want to lose the encouragement of a work/live campus type environment. He said that staff recognized that this is an important point for employment center industrial development. He also stated that they want it to be master planned as much as possible instead of piecemealed in.
Commissioner Hird said that the K-10 and Hwy 40 language refers to the interchange over time serving as a gateway to Lawrence and is best suited for warehouse and distribution uses, industrial uses, work/live campus type centers, and industrial/business/research parks. He asked if there was any reason why the language could not be mirrored for the language on the I-70 and K-10 area.
Ms. Miller said that one of the reasons was the potential for the large acreage at the I-70 and K-10 site. There is potential for a much larger area to be identified.
Mr. McCullough said that the language pasted in I-70 and K-10 would not be off the mark of what might develop in that area. Staff wants to encourage a work/live campus facility. It would not be out of line to use the same language.
Commissioner Hird recalled a subcommittee meeting where they discussed not intending the language on the I-70 and K-10 location to serve as a limitation. He did not see any reason that the same language from the K-10 and Hwy 40 area could not be used for K-10 and I-70. He felt that there should be consistency.
Mr. McCullough said they were trying to encourage the work/live campus for the area but they are not focused on one parcel at this point and are trying to look at the sector plan. He did not think there was a conflict to mirror some of the language from I-70 and Hwy 40 that talks about the area serving as a gateway over time and best suited for warehouse distribution uses and such. He thought that they may want to tweak the language to encourage the work/live campus center in the area but that it is not a conflict from the land use standpoint to include the other type of industrial uses.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve and forward to City Commission the amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 7 – Industrial and Employment Related Land Use and authorize the chair to sign PC Resolution 2008-04 regarding this amendment, as proposed with the following changes:
“The preservation of high-quality agricultural land, which has been recognized as a finite resource that is important to the regional economy, has been a substantial topic in the community. High-quality agricultural land is generally defined as available land that has good soil quality and produces high yields of crops. Within Douglas County these are capability class (non-irrigated) 1 and 2 as identified by the National Resources Conservation Service.”
“e. be located outside prime agricultural farmland as defined by United States Department of Agriculture.”
Commissioner Hird made an amendment to replace the last sentence of the I-70 and K-10 paragraph on p. 7-7 with the following sentence taken from the last sentence in the paragraph under the K-10 and Highway 40 section on p. 7-7: ‘Over time, as this area develops, it will serve as a gateway to the City of Lawrence and would best be suited for Warehouse and Distribution uses, Industrial uses, Work-live Campus type centers and Industrial/Business/Research parks.’ This amendment is in place of Comm. Finkeldei’s change to the I-70 and K-10 paragraph mentioned in the main body of the memo.
Commissioner Finkeldei agreed to Commissioner Hird’s amendment and also suggested a revision to staff’s change regarding the 2nd to last paragraph on p. 7-8. The revision changes the first sentence in that paragraph to say “The preservation of high-quality agricultural land, which has been recognized as a finite resource that is important to the regional economy, is of important value to this community.”
Commissioner Moore seconded the amendments.
Motion carried 7-2 with Commissioners Blaser and Harris in opposition.