Memorandum

City of Lawrence / Douglas County

Planning & Development Services

TO:	David L. Corliss, City Manager Craig Weinaug, County Administrator
FROM:	Scott McCullough, Director
Date:	February 2, 2012
RE:	Site Plan Processing Analysis – 2011 Reporting Period

This report provides a summary of site plan data for 2011, as well as a comparison to years 2009 and 2010.  Site planning is one of the main procedural tools used to review development projects against the city’s and county’s development codes.

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 2011 there were no appeals submitted for City Commission consideration, though the Commission did spend considerable time in 2011 on the Dillon’s project on Massachusetts Street, which was a late 2010 application, and recently considered the Remington Square Apartment site plan in conjunction with its rezoning request.

The attached table provides data on the 2011 site plan applications.  Highlights of the data include:

• A total of 83 site plan applications were processed for the city and county combined.
• As of January 13, 2012 61 applications were approved, 1 was denied (Remington Square based on rezoning denial), 6 were withdrawn, and 15 were in some level of process.
• 60% of applications were completed within 30 business days while 23% were approved after 40 business days.
• The average number of business days that staff had the application in review was 19.
• The maximum number of business days to process an application from submittal to approval was 122 for the Hunter’s Ridge Apartment complex at the northeast corner of 6^th Street and Stoneridge Drive.

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

1. Poehler Multi-Dwelling Structure (619 E 8^th St.) – 73 days
2. Natural Grocers (1301 W. 23^rd St.) – 55 days
3. Hunter’s Ridge Apartment Complex (NE corner of 6^th and Stoneridge Dr.) – 122 days
4. Briggs Subaru Dealership (2233 W. 29^th Terr.) – 32 days
5. McFarlane Aviation Light Industrial Bldg (694 E. 1700 Rd.) – 46 days

Multi-year comparison

	2009	2010	2011
Number of Site Plans Processed	56	65	83
Percent completed within 30 business days	60%	43%	60%
Avg. business days in staff review	14	21	19

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 Attorney’s Office, City Manager or other departments), 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, the ability of consultants to perform in a timely manner, 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.

It is important to keep in mind that there are several entities that have an interest in site planning.  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.

Continuous Improvement

Staff made substantial progress on two efforts intended to further the efficiency of the site planning process.  The first is the recent adoption by both the City and County Commissions of the joint Subdivision Regulations.  Site planning is often linked with platting and the code was revised to streamline the platting process.

The second major effort that will be less visible to applicants but helpful to staff is implementation of the Innoprise application tracking software system.  This will help all review agencies provide quick input to Planning staff as reviews are completed.