Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning & Development Services

 

TO:

David L. Corliss, City Manager

 

FROM:

Scott McCullough, Director

 

Date:

October 2010

 

RE:

Development Code impact on retail development

 

 

 

The retail Task Force has requested a discussion on the Development Code’s impact on retail projects in the city. 

 

This memo informs the task force that a process of reviewing the code for its standards and processes has been occurring for a couple of years by those most closely associated with Lawrence development – architects, real estate attorneys, engineers, planners, etc. – all representing the interest of their business clients.  This group is broadly based in commercial-retail, industrial, and residential development and several concrete examples of code standards needing improvement have been presented during time.  Staff and the City Commission have worked to revise the codes to lessen the burden on businesses.

 

Here is a brief review of what has been presented and revised.

 

  1. What we heard:  Parking standards are too restrictive for the existing commercial complexes.  What we did: Revised parking lot standards to be more reasonable in order to help ensure that commercial properties could achieve full occupancy.  (Ordinance No. 8453 adopted September 22, 2009)
  2. What we heard:  Interior parking lot landscaping standards require too much space and the value of shade and aesthetics can be maintained with less landscape area.  What we did: Revised interior parking lot landscaping standards to be more reasonable yet maintain the ability to shade parking lots and remain aesthetically pleasing. (Ordinance No. 8429 adopted July 28, 2009)
  3. What we heard:  In today’s economy, longer periods of approval are needed so that the work of gaining approval is not lost.  What we did: Revised approval time periods and provided more lenient extension options to address the recession. (Ordinance No. 8419 adopted June 23, 2009)
  4. What we heard:  Changing use at existing commercial buildings and in downtown is a challenge due to the time and cost of site planning.  What we did:  Revised the code to exempt changes in use and development activity in the CD district as long as certain thresholds, related to an existing building’s size and height, are not exceeded.  Also revised the code to raise the threshold of when a site plan is required for existing commercial properties. (Ordinance No. 8465 adopted October 13, 2009)
  5. What we heard:  The range in properties are wide, with some properties being developed decades ago on small lots and some being greenfield sites.  The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) process is viewed as an impediment if all properties must follow standards primarily meant for greenfield development.  What we did:  Provided the Planning Director with the ability to waive code standards for all site plan types for good cause shown as long as sound site planning principals are upheld.  The BZA remains an avenue for standards that the Director does not find he/she can waive. (Ordinance No. 8465 adopted October 13, 2009)
  6. What we heard:  The trigger (20% expansion or 1500 sq ft) for requiring industrial sites to come into full compliance with the Development Code is too small and discourages needed improvements at industrial sites.  What we did:  Created a new threshold (50%) for developments in the IG district for when the entire site must comply fully with the code.  Developments in the IG district that expand greater than 50% of their current development would be required to comply fully with the code unless waived by the Planning Director.  The threshold for all other districts remains at a 20% increase. (Ordinance No. 8465 adopted October 13, 2009)
  7. What we heard: Small businesses need to know about code issues early in their process of seeking a location to do business.  What we did:  Staff met with the Kansas Small Business Development Center early in the winter of ’09-’10 to convey information to this group that acts as a liaison to small businesses, encouraging them to make code standards a part of their seminars to small businesses.
  8. What we heard:  Projects can get lost in the process and it can take too long to get review comments.  What we did:  Staff made this issue a priority beginning in 2008 and have greatly reduced the time to process site plans, building permits, etc.  We implemented weekly plan review meetings, increased communication with applicants earlier in the process, hold more frequent internal development review meetings, and identified and strengthened internal communications so that we review the status of every permit on a weekly basis and know whether the issues lie with city reviews or external elements that are out of staff’s control.

 

Work in progress includes:

 

  1. What we heard:  The platting process is cumbersome and dedicating rights-of-way and easements with preliminary plats is not efficient.  What we are doing:  We are processing revisions to the subdivision regulations that alter the process for platting to make it more conventional and efficient for applicants and staff.  TA 3-3-10
  2. What we heard:  The development process, as a whole, needs improvement.  What we are doing:  The city merged the Planning and Development Services departments in 2007 and has been taking steps to better coordinate processes ever since.  Communication/coordination bridges were built in areas lacking such - Historic Resources and Building Plan Review, for example.  More consistent review comments and times are a goal.  In 2009 we implemented electronic submittals which greatly improved the time for internal processing, plan review, and access to revisions.  Additionally, the city is implementing Innoprise Community Development software for no additional costs than already allocated, which will permit all city agencies to review project data at one source.

 

Retail Task Force discussions:

 

The Retail Task Force has often discussed that the process is a hurdle to retail development, yet many of the issues identified above have addressed impediments to retail projects – revising parking standards, exempting downtown changes in use from site planning, increasing the threshold for site planning commercial projects, etc.  Hopefully, the lists above shed light on the efforts made at making the process much more reasonable and efficient.  Note, though, that life/safety codes related to building construction and fire safety have not been lessened, as our highest priority is public safety.

 

Even with these improvements, staff is constantly reviewing the codes and practices and is learning more with the Retail Task Force discussion.  Ways that we can identify to improve our codes and practices in light of the Retail Task Force discussion include: