Rumbles and friction at the philosophically divided Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission have some officials saying it is time to change the way the board that guides area development operates.

“I’m not trying to step on anybody’s toes here, but there are some people on the Planning Commission who don’t know the front end of a bulldozer from the back end of a bulldozer, and they’re making development decisions.”

That’s from Planning Commissioner Tom Jennings, one of those who say it’s time to re-examine the board’s role, criteria for selecting its members and how the panel works with the City Commission.

Jennings is among a group of planning commissioners who have begun to publicly raise concerns ranging from whether the planning process has become too political to whether planning commissioners are adequately qualified to guide growth and development in the community.

The concerns have caught the attention of at least one city commissioner.

“I have heard anecdotally some of those concerns, and I have seen firsthand some of those issues,” said City Commissioner Sue Hack. “I think it is time we start taking it seriously.”

Hack said she has asked Planning Director Linda Finger to put together a report that shows how other communities structure their planning commissions. Hack said some of the concerns may stem from planning commissioners and staff simply being overworked. Many of the monthly Planning Commission meetings last past midnight.

“I think it may be time to have the conversation of whether we’re asking too much of our Planning Commission,” Hack said. “There may be ways to streamline that. That doesn’t mean we would give projects free passes, but it might mean we use our staff’s professional knowledge better.”

Politics or policy?

Planning Commissioner Grant Eichhorn said he decided to begin expressing his frustrations after the City Commission rejected a proposed residential development near the Lake Estates area in west Lawrence after the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval. Eichhorn said he believed city commissioners voted against the plan, on a 3-2 vote, largely for political reasons related to trying to please the area’s neighbors who opposed the development.

County officials at odds over regulations (3-21-05) Southeast Lawrence proposal splits city, county (3-8-05) City studying new neighborhood planning concept (2-13-05)

“What we’re doing now is just playing friends and moving the city around one way or the other to meet the whims of individuals as opposed to making good planning decisions,” Eichhorn said.

Planning Commissioner Ernie Angino said he agreed.

“There is a perception by a number of people in the community that the Planning Commission is becoming the handmaiden of the City Commission, and that is a concern,” Angino said.

But other officials say the complaints are unfounded.

City Commissioner David Schauner — who along with Mayor Mike Rundle and Commissioner Boog Highberger voted against the Lake Estates request — said he firmly believed the planning process had become more balanced in the last several years.

“What I find almost laughable is that when I decided to run for the City Commission two years ago, I saw the rules of Horizon 2020 (the comprehensive planning guide and document) being consumed by the exceptions,” Schauner said. “That was all fueled by politics. I find all this ironic.”

Schauner said his vote against the Lake Estates project stemmed from a lack of long-range planning for the area and that he was concerned about the network of roads that would serve the area. City commissioners eventually approved the project, contingent upon developers finding a way to buy a property that would allow two area roads to be connected.

Expertise issues

Jennings said the Lake Estates project frustrated him, but said there were other issues that pointed to planning problems.

Jennings, who has been on the Planning Commission since 2000, said he thought the commission worked better when it had members who were more familiar with the issues facing the development community. In the past, the commission has had architects, engineers, attorneys and other professionals who worked with developers. Currently most members have jobs that aren’t closely tied to the development community.

Schauner said that’s the way it should be.

“The thing you don’t want is people who are in the development business being on the Planning Commission because they have mixed allegiances,” Schauner said. “They probably have clients who are coming before the Planning Commission.”

Schauner said he would be very leery of any proposal to require that planning commissioners have development-specific qualifications.

“When you start talking about how to rearrange the Planning Commission, that sounds very political,” Schauner said. “What that suggests to me is that people who want plans to go through the process very quickly aren’t getting what they want.”

Several planning commissioners also said they would be disappointed if wholesale changes were made to the commission’s structure. Planning Commissioner David Burress says the commission is not broken; it just is not of one mind on many issues.

“Certainly the Planning Commission is divided,” Burress said. “There is a working majority that supports smart growth principles, and there is a minority that is basically opposed to a lot of smart growth issues. You can call that political if you want, but I don’t see it that way. It is certainly contentious, though.”

But Planning Commission Chairman John Haase said there was nothing wrong with the vigorous debates that often ensued.

“I think the Planning Commission is functioning pretty well,” Haase said. “I think we would be in real danger if everyone on the Planning Commission was like-minded. Whenever you create an environment where there is one point of view, you are in danger of overlooking important opposing points of view.”