LEAGUE LAND USE POSITION ON THE ENVIRONMENT:

INTERPRETATION & ACTION

At the direction of the general membership, on December 4, 2005, members of the Land Use
Committee (LUC) of the League of Women Voters of Lawrence–Douglas County offered a
review of the Local Land Use position of the LWV L-DC Environmental Policy. Members
focused on the first part of the Policy, positions adopted regarding planning principles and
financing (Planning Principles–Consensus, comprising the sections 1. Conservation of
Agricultural Land and Open Space, 2. Neighborhood Planning, 3. Environmental Preservation,
4. Transportation, 5. Economic Considerations, and 6. Financing–Consensus), explaining how
the LUC interprets the positions and uses them in actions on issues. Reprinted below are
transcripts of presentations on sections 1–4.

1. Conservation of Agricultural Land and Open Space

The League’s position states: “New non-farm development in the unincorporated areas of the
county should be limited to the urban growth areas of towns and cities in anticipation of
annexation.”
Farmland is a very important natural resource! Not only does agriculture in Douglas County
provide food in the form of wheat, corn, and soybeans, which require some processing, but also
is the source of homegrown vegetables and fruits, much of it grown organically and available in
the Merc and seasonally in the Farmers’ Market. This adds to our economy.
Areas surrounding farmland provide open space. They support wildlife, prevent erosion, and
are important components of both the hydrological cycle and carbon cycle. This open space is
significant to a healthy and enjoyable life in our cities. Our residents, children as well as adults,
gain an appreciation for where our food comes from and how it grows, and where our wild
animals (fish, birds, deer, etc.) live and survive.
Non-farm residents and farmers have different needs and desires, which frequently result in
their taking opposing positions on issues. The extra traffic caused by non-farm residents is a
hindrance to the slow movement of farm machinery and vice versa. Gravel roads produce dust—
much dust from swiftly moving vehicles. The new residents complain, request and get “chip-
and-seal” roads to replace them. These do not stand up well and result in many potholes, which
slow the movement of farm machinery even more.
Non-farm residents react negatively to the odors associated with many farm animals, the
noise accompanying the use of tractors, combines, and other machinery for long hours (early in
the morning and late, after dark) and to complaints of their neighboring farmers, for instance,
with regard to the damage and dangers associated with dogs running loose and in packs.
It should also be pointed out that the cost in services required by farmland and open space is
significantly less than for residential use. Infrastructure is expensive to build and maintain.
Police, fire protection, and ambulance service may be deemed inadequate and too slow.
Septic systems fail over the years, resulting in more pollution. Water tables are lowered as
more wells are dug, though now water districts provide most of the potable water. Until
relatively recently, growth was controlled by availability of meters. However, the situation is
getting more complicated, as some districts are united and arranging for sources of water other
than Lawrence.

LUC rpt on Enviromental Policy 1

 More and better roads are required for transportation, as cars are needed every day for getting
to work, for shopping, and for additional buses to get children to and from school. More
maintenance is required for the roads—the cost increases and is borne in part by residents of
Lawrence.
Limiting non-farm residential development to the urban growth area, instead of leap-frogging
in the county, would result in eventual annexation and the acquisition of all the amenities
associated with it. This would result in the reservation of our farmland for its ultimate use as a
source of food and the enjoyment and use of open space for all.
—Eleanor Wenger

2. Neighborhood planning.
The League’s position states: “The primary urban planning unit should be the neighborhood,
large enough to support the location of a nursery-elementary school park (also serving as a
community center), daily shopping and recreational spaces within walking distance for all
residents of the neighborhood protected from through traffic and including bike paths and
pedestrian walkways. Housing of various types for people of different ages and income should
be available.”
Our Land Use position and several ancillary documents published by the Land Use Committee
(“Land Use” packet [1991], articles on land use issues published as 5 chapters in the Voter
[1997], and “Thoughts on neighborhood planning” [1999]) emphasize various aspects of
importance to neighborhoods and neighborhood planning areas. These include:
Size and definition of neighborhoods. Neighborhood planning areas should be about a mile
square, but may be determined by walking distance to neighborhood services and parks; some
planners establish one-half mile as the maximum size. In addition, neighborhood associations
may draw their boundaries according to other parameters, such as residents’ perceptions of what
constitutes a socially cohesive area.
Natural and manmade boundaries. Streets that carry high volumes of traffic, major
waterways, or other features extrinsic to neighborhood functioning may define de facto
neighborhood boundaries.
Availability of facilities and services, such as schools, parks, and businesses. Neighborhoods
require services that meet daily or weekly needs. Urban neighborhoods may benefit from
nearby places of employment for residents.
Walkability and connectivity. Neighborhoods should be protected from high volumes of
through traffic, but traversable by all residents. They should accommodate mass transit and
non-motorized forms of transit. Direct routes within neighborhoods and from residential to
non-residential areas should be serviced by sidewalks and bike lanes, as should connections
to adjacent neighborhoods. Neighborhood automobile traffic should have direct access to
services so that it is not forced onto arterials to get from one area of the neighborhood to
another.
Diversity of housing types. Neighborhoods should offer housing appropriate for a mix of
people of different ages, incomes, and ownership status.
The four original goals for the position were to create neighborhoods that provide convenience,
choices, opportunity, and predictability for residents. The Land Use Committee has emphasized
factors that enable neighborhoods to grow sustainably and that help them remain livable over
time. For instance, the LUC paper “Thoughts on neighborhood planning” (1999) has argued that

LUC rpt on Enviromental Policy 2

an essential ingredient of strong neighborhoods is regular property maintenance by residents.
Good planning and zoning can promote property maintenance by ensuring that future changes to
neighborhoods are predictable and will not come to the detriment of the residents of built areas.
Towards this end, we have argued that planning whole neighborhoods should be carried out by
the city in advance of development (including infill development) to ensure appropriate
transitions between uses and building scales, availability of services, and connectivity within and
between neighborhood areas.
While good planning for these elements may lead to strong neighborhoods, design of new
neighborhoods or redevelopment of older ones that results in traffic congestion, lack of
conveniences, or adjacencies of conflicting land uses, building scales, or residential densities
may all lead to deterioration of a neighborhood. Unfortunately, recent suburban residential and
commercial developments in Lawrence tend to work against these principals of predictable
neighborhood development, particularly with respect to availability of facilities and services,
walkability and connectivity, and diversity of housing types. Residential areas are generally
isolated from other uses, without direct pedestrian routes to services or other residential areas.
Parks and school facilities serve areas much larger than a reasonable walking distance from all
residences. Commercial areas are increasingly large and designed primarily for vehicular access
from arterials, with limited access to adjacent residential areas. Higher density residential
developments are frequently proposed for large tracts of land or, without suitable transition
through medium density housing, adjacent to low density residential. Draft versions of some
policy documents currently under review would reinforce these kinds of developments.
During the 2004–06 League years, the Land Use Committee has sent 48 letters to the
Planning, County, and/or Lawrence City Commissions. Twenty-six of these letters dealt in some
way with neighborhood issues. Of these, 15 addressed land use issues specific to particular
developments (mostly arguing for predictability of neighborhood development, better transitions
between uses, and/or maintenance agreements [10], but also connectivity within developments
[2] and whole neighborhood planning [3]). Eleven communications addressed more general
topics relevant to all neighborhoods in county or city codes or policy documents (arguing for
predictability [4], connectivity [2], neighborhood planning [2], the need for neighborhood parks
[2], and the effects of planning arterials to bisect neighborhoods [1]).
—Caleb Morse

3. Environmental Preservation
Interpretation. It must have been an environmental engineer who said, “There is no such thing
as a ‘natural disaster.’ There are only natural events and human disasters.” His point, of course,
was that we ignore nature at our peril. And this is the basis of the League Land Use position on
the environment. We are concerned primarily with growth and change, and our position states
“...planning for the city and county should preserve the social and physical environment by the
control of growth.”
The term “preserve” does not mean that the environment should not be changed. Our concern
is with how the environment is changed. The term “control” means to regulate and plan, not to
prevent growth. Adoption of land use environmental planning and regulation helps control the
damaging environmental aspects of growth, and most importantly, to avoid the hazards that we

LUC rpt on Enviromental Policy 3

bring upon ourselves and our future generations by ignoring the natural exigencies of the
environment.
We recognize that the overriding planning consideration before anything else must be
drainage basin planning, sometimes referred to as “Watershed Planning,” because stormwater
runoff, floodplains, and gravity-flow sewerage are dependent on the form and characteristics of
our underlying land. If we ignore land contours, stormwater drainageways and floodplains, we
do so at our peril. And terra firma isn’t always firma, especially when we remove stabilizing
vegetation from slopes and stream corridors. We have to avoid creating downstream problems by
preventing erosion, pollution from run-off, and other damaging changes such as channelization.
And with climate change, we need to anticipate the worst, instead of just the average.
Our position suggests solutions to environmental problems of growth with three basic
approaches: (1) the open space system, (2) avoidance of pollution-causing and hazardous land
use, and (3) requiring environmental performance standards for development. These three
environmental considerations are interrelated with all other activities, and cannot be separated.
Our position recognizes that an “an open space system” should be a part of our county land use.
Our emphasis on the open space system is one of the most important elements of our position
because this system provides critical environmental functions and combines with other land uses.
Undeveloped county land including agricultural land should act as a barrier to uncontrolled
growth in the unincorporated areas. Within urban areas the open space system should provide
open space corridors utilizing natural drainageways and flood plains between parks and built-up
areas. These open space corridors and plains can be used for connecting trails and bicycle paths
as well as functioning components of our stormwater system. Our position recognizes that flood
plains should be preserved for floodwater storage rather than being filled and used as building
sites. Our position to support agricultural land use and preserve intrinsically valuable natural
areas fits well as part of the open space system.
We are instructed to “avoid pollution of air, water, and land.” Besides direct action, this
position can be realized by other positions such as reducing automobile dependence, thereby
reducing air pollution. By preventing non-farm residential sprawl in the county we also avoid the
water and soil pollution from on-lot septic systems. Adoption of environmental performance
standards and drainage basin planning and regulation, prevents erosion, and land pollution; and
by protecting floodplains and steep vegetated slopes we also avoid hazardous human building
sites.
Our third most important environmental position is to adapt development to the capabilities
of the land rather than adapt the land to the requirements of the development. In some respects
this is the core of our position on development. We elaborate by listing some of the
“performance standards” that development must conform to in order to adapt to the constraints of
land. We point out that some land types with constraints allow development by proper
regulation, and other types should be left undisturbed and preserved as open space.

Our general land use position allowed us to study and support the environmental policies of
Plan’95, which we then included in our position. Plan’95 took a planning management approach,
and not only set goals and policies, but also gave instructions on what information needed to be
compiled–data bases--to support its plan implementation. One database needed was an inventory
of land types and locations that posed building constraints, as well as natural areas to be
preserved. This information is a prerequisite to adopting appropriate plans and regulations. The

LUC rpt on Enviromental Policy 4

consultants compiled this information when writing Horizon 2020, but to my knowledge it has
never been used.
Actions on Environmental positions. In terms of taking action, we have consistently supported
both state and federal floodplain zoning and have testified on the ordinances as they were
revised. For many years we supported the adoption of storm water management as a utility. After
severe flooding in 1993, the City Commission finally did take action on this, and we asked them
to adopt a stormwater management plan before expending funds, which they did. We also were
active in support of the 1996 storm water management Criteria, a manual of standards. One of
our members was represented on the task force that helped write these criteria (Joyce Wolf).
Currently, several chapters of Horizon 2020 are undergoing revision. We asked the Planning
Commission in its revision to the Chapter 8, Transportation Map to require an environmental
assessment on an arterial extension of Peterson Road into an environmentally sensitive area. In
the revised Chapter 9, Parks, Recreation and Open Space, we asked, among other things, that
mini-parks be included in areas of higher density. We also supported Chapter 13, Rural Planning
and Development, but asked that detailed large area (sector and neighborhood) planning be done
in order to allow subdivisions in the Urban Growth Area to urbanize. And most important of all,
we asked that identifying and studying entire drainage basins in the Urban Growth Area be done
first, including the planning necessary for stormwater management, because on this all other land
use depends.
A recent and ongoing activity has been reviewing environmental regulations in the soon-to-
be-adopted, Lawrence Development Code and Subdivision Regulations. We have a list of
requested revisions, but can claim only partial success. League also reviewed, with suggestions,
the Commercial Design Standards that will be part of the new Development Code.
As new regulations and plans are proposed, we review them in light of our land use position
and take action by writing letters, voicing our position at meetings, and we hope, keeping our
membership informed.
—Betty Lichtwardt

4. Transportation
Planning for Lawrence and Douglas County should minimize the use of automobiles and
encourage use of alternative travel modes: public transportation, bicycles, and walking. Land
use should be planned in conjunction with the transportation system. Traffic access and
circulation, both pedestrian and vehicular (including bicycles) is a primary issue to be solved
before approving zoning requests, and also a consideration in platting and site planning.
A well-designed neighborhood unit plan should reduce the use of the private car within each
neighborhood. An efficient distribution of different activities within the whole urban and rural
areas should also minimize the use of automobiles and allow an economical public transportation
system to result.
Streets. Streets should be designed according to their function. There should be no major streets
or arterials inside of neighborhoods. Instead collector and connector streets should be used to
facilitate circulation within neighborhoods. Arterials may be used as neighborhood boundaries.
Subdivisions should be planned so that their streets connect with the streets in adjacent
subdivisions. Curb cuts should not be approved where they create congestion or traffic counts in
excess of street capacity.

LUC rpt on Enviromental Policy 5

Public Transportation. The League supports public transportation for the City of Lawrence.
The City should provide comprehensive bus service including the University of Kansas and
public schools. Bus routes should be planned to provide service to those persons needing it most,
while trying to maximize the number of riders.

Bikeways and Pedestrianways. The League supports the adoption and implementation of a plan
for comprehensive bikeway and pedestrianway systems for Lawrence to provide for and
encourage the safe and efficient use of bicycles and walking as a means of transportation and
recreation. The City should enforce state and local laws that pertain to cycling and walking and
provide appropriate parking facilities for bicycles.
We support the use of Class I bikeways (bike paths) and/or Class II bikeways (bike lanes)
along principal streets rather than Class III bikeways (bike routes). Planned bicycle paths/lanes
should be installed when principal streets are constructed or widened. Bicyclists who are familiar
with the problems of bicycling in our area should be actively involved in the development of the
bikeway system. The City and County should be responsible for the maintenance of the bikeway
system. When a bicycle path is adjacent to a roadway, the bicyclist should be required to use the
path.
Planning and implementation of pedestrian access should be accomplished at all phases of
land use planning. Culs-de-sac within subdivisions should be connected by pathways that make it
easier to walk within neighborhoods from residential areas to activity centers such as schools,
parks, and commercial uses. There should be improved pedestrian access to bus stops. The City
should enforce the proper maintenance of pedestrianways.
—Alan Black

Summary of communications from the Land Use Committee, 23 May 2004 – 6 Nov 2005.
The Land Use Committee has addressed comments to the Planning Commission, City
Commission, and/or County Commission (through letters and statements) 48 times. Twenty-
seven of these comments dealt with issues related to specific development proposals; 20 dealt
with policies under consideration. Many of our correspondences contained comments on general
issues related to terminology (7), procedural issues (9), or need for better internal policy (3), as
well.

General Rural
Neighborhoods Transportation Environment Financing
Issues Development

Specific
9 6 15 5 4 0
proposal

General
10 2 11 4 4 2
policy

LUC rpt on Enviromental Policy 6