Memorandum

City of Lawrence / Douglas County

Planning & Development Services

TO:	David L. Corliss, City Manager Craig Weinaug, County Administrator
FROM:	Scott McCullough, Director
CC:	Cynthia Boecker, Assistant City Manager Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager
Date:	February 8, 2010
RE:	Site Plan Processing Analysis

This report provides a summary of site plan data for 2009.  Site planning is one of the main procedural tools used to review development projects against the city’s and county’s development codes.  Recent amendments to the Lawrence Development Code will produce fewer site plans in the future, especially downtown where it was determined that changes in uses where no external modifications would be made would be exempt from site planning in order to encourage business-friendly practices in this area.

The County Commission reviews most site plans in the unincorporated areas of the county.  In Lawrence, site planning is largely an administrative function with appeals submitted directly to the City Commission.  In 2009 there were no appeals submitted for City Commission consideration.

The attached table provides data on the 2009 site plan applications.  Highlights of the data include:

• A total of 56 site plan applications were processed for the city and county combined.
• As of February 5, 2010 45 applications were approved, 0 were denied, 4 were withdrawn, and the remaining 7 are still in some level of process.
• Nearly 60% of applications are completed within 30 business days.
• The average number of business days that staff had the application in review was 14.
• The maximum number of business days to process an application from submittal to approval was 210 for a set of stairs in front of the Eldridge Hotel Extended proposed in the right-of-way.  Negotiating the legal issues was the main reason for the delay in this application.

Projects notable for their size or impact to a neighborhood, along with the total time, in business days, from submittal to approval, include:

1. Midland Care Connection Adult Day Care (319 Perry St.) – 21 days
2. Hawkeye Helicopter (Lawrence Municipal Airport) – 23 days
3. Imagine Drop-In Childcare Center (536 Fireside Dr.) – 36 days
4. Tractor Supply (2450 Fairfield St.) – 40 days
5. Orscheln Farm and Home (1223 E. 23^rd St.) – 120 days

It is important to understand that issues, some related to city resources and processes and some related to the applicant, can extend the time required to complete the review process. City-related issues include staffing resources in Planning as well as other city departments that delay review comments, taking time to research and render determinations on a code issue (may require input of the city manager or other department heads), reviewing associated cases for the same property (plats, floodplain development permit, etc.), and the fact that site plan reviews compete for the same time needed to review other types of applications that may have statutory or local code deadlines (rezonings, SUPs, special event permits, etc.).  Site plan review can be delayed when the deadline for planning commission reports, or other assignments that have more critical deadlines, are nearing. 

Issues that can affect the total review time that are related to the applicant include substantially revising the application one or more times during the review, private financing issues, private ownership or other legal matters, state or federal review, working with neighborhood associations or individual neighbors, etc.  Further, the actual review may trigger elements of a project that are not compliant with the Development Code, thus requiring a decision by the applicant of whether to seek variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals or comply with the Development Code by modifying the design.

Development Code Revisions in 2009

In 2009 the Development Code was significantly revised in order to encourage infill and downtown development and also to provide broader notice to the neighborhoods in which projects are located.  Applicants and owners still must communicate with PDS to learn the process for their particular project, but the revisions were meant to encourage a more business friendly framework by which to develop and redevelop sites in the city while maintaining, and even expanding, the ability for neighbors and neighborhoods to participate in the site planning process.

It is important to keep in mind that there are several entities that have an interest in site planning and determining whose interest will be served is one of the challenges in arriving at a code that balances all of the interests.  These interests include:

1. The City – the city has an interest in quality development that meets the governing body established codes and best practices for utility placement, access management, storm water management, architectural compatibility, lighting, life-safety, parking, etc.
2. The applicant/owner – the owner has an interest in receiving a timely and consistent review and determination to quickly reach the building permit stage of the project or appeal a determination of denial to the city commission.
3. The surrounding neighborhood – the neighborhood has an interest in maintaining property values and quality of life.

The text amendments completed in 2009 were intended to balance these interests.  Because of the revised codes, the number of site plans should be reduced in future years, though the time spent with consultants and land owners will remain high as all involved parties navigate the complex codes.

In addition to the code amendments, the PDS department implemented a staff-created site plan tracking system in 2009 in order to track and improve the site planning process.  The department is scheduled to implement a more advanced system in 2010 to develop more appropriate performance measures in order to continuously improve our processes.