Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sends proposed Commerce Center rezoning back to planning after residents oppose CP-3 request and stacked billboards
Summary
After more than an hour of resident testimony and council debate, Gardner's City Council remanded a developer's request to rezone roughly 51 acres near I-35 for a commerce center and four stacked billboards back to the Planning Commission for revisions that would limit heavy truck traffic and better match the city's community commercial land-use guidance.
The Gardner City Council remanded a multi-part application for the proposed 190 Ninth Street Commerce Center back to the Planning Commission with instructions to explore alternatives that better align with the city's community commercial land-use designation and reduce the potential for truck-intensive uses.
The application requested rezoning approximately 51 acres of a roughly 91-acre site from County Rural Residential (RUR) to CP-3 (planned heavy commercial), approval of a preliminary development plan for three buildings and three outdoor retail sales/storage lots, and a conditional use permit (CUP) for four principal-use sign structures (each 45 feet tall and vertically stacked with two faces per side).
Planning staff and the Planning Commission both recommended denial, saying the requested CP-3 zoning and proposed development intensity were inconsistent with the I-35 and Gardner Road subarea plan and would introduce origin-and-destination commercial truck traffic where the plan envisioned lower-intensity community commercial (CO or COA) uses. Staff also listed neighborhood concerns heard at Planning Commission: heavy vehicle traffic, noise and light pollution, floodplain/runoff impacts, proximity to an elementary school, and general neighborhood safety.
Applicant representatives from Phelps Engineering (Judd Clausen) and development principals (Fred Wingert and Lynn Baker) presented a plan they said would be a transition between the interstate and residential areas: three mid-sized buildings, a significant tree buffer on the east, stormwater detention basins, and initial phase installation of the four billboards. The applicants proposed use restrictions intended to limit intensive truck traffic, described landscaping and stormwater controls, and said the project could add property tax and sales tax revenue if built as proposed. They also offered to work on trail easements and to preserve tree canopy in the stream corridor.
More than a dozen nearby residents spoke during the public hearing. Speakers who live adjacent to or near the property urged denial, citing existing truck traffic on County roads, flooding and insufficient culverts, potential increases in heavy commercial traffic, and reduced rural character. Several residents said they had chosen to become part of the City of Gardner to secure protections against warehouse and heavy-truck traffic and asked the council to honor those expectations. A resident also raised potential campaign contributions from the applicant to some council members and asked that elected officials consider recusal; the mayor and other council members disclosed ex parte contacts and donations for the record.
Council discussion evaluated whether the site's future land use designation (community commercial in the subarea plan) could be met by a CO/COA zoning or a CP-3 with strict use restrictions. Council members and the city attorney referenced Kansas law that allows local regulation of outdoor advertising but limits rezoning created primarily to permit billboards; the attorney noted state statutes that require commercial or industrial zoning before outdoor advertising may be allowed and warned against creating zoning that exists mainly to permit signs. Several council members said they were not comfortable approving a CP-3 that would leave open the possibility of higher-intensity warehousing and truck traffic in the future.
After extended debate, the council voted to remand the application to the Planning Commission with direction that staff and the applicant explore approaches that align CP-3 uses with community commercial (CO/COA) intent, tighten use restrictions (particularly to limit truck-intensive warehousing/distribution), and consider covenants or other legal tools to limit future intensification; the council also asked staff to examine whether sign needs could be met without broad CP-3 zoning. The remand preserves public review and requires the applicant to return with revised materials for Planning Commission consideration and another public hearing.
The remand decision does not constitute approval or denial of the rezoning, preliminary development plan, or CUP; it directs further study and revision and returns the matter to the administrative review process.
