City rolls over small snag in Lowe’s development plan
By Russ Morgan (Contact)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The effort to bring Lowe’s to Emporia hit a minor snag during Wednesday’s city commission meeting, but the process will continue after the commission voted 4-1 to approve the application for a final planned unit development for the site northeast of Industrial Road and 24th Avenue. Commissioner Julie Johnson cast the dissenting vote.
The bump in the road involved an agreement that hasn’t been reached yet regarding who will be responsible for maintenance of storm water detention in the area. The plan had to be adjusted because the Army Corps of Engineers claimed part of one of the lots as a wetland area.
This decision gives the corps jurisdiction, and so the storm water detention area as well as the potential planned housing had to be pushed north in the final plan. Commissioners had many questions regarding this change, and the lack of a solid agreement on who would be responsible for maintaining the detention area led to discussion on whether the commission should approve the development or wait for an agreement to be made.
“The way the plat and the PUD stand now is, it is defined as a drainage easement by the meets and bounds description that’s on the plat. What isn’t discussed is whether that is being dedicated to the city or to being held by the lot 6 landowner,” said Dave Olsen, a representative of developer D.J. Christie. “What the contract will do is either dedicate that ground to the city or define those maintenance obligations beyond what is being described on the plat. ... The contract that we’re talking about would further describe who is responsible for what, and that contract then would transfer some of those obligations to other third parties ... ”
City Manager Matt Zimmerman did not agree.
“Where I would disagree with Dave is he said ‘was not being discussed or decided yet,’ whereas it has been discussed but we don’t have an agreement,” he said. “The city has not agreed to some of the requests made by the landowner and the developer, and those are things we have to work out. ...”
“The issues haven’t really been joined and predetermined because we don’t know how that’s going to shake out as far as maintenance responsibilities are going to be,” said city attorney Blaise Plummer.
“But am I wrong in thinking that perhaps it would be good to have that clearly delineated before we approve a final plat of a PUD?” asked Johnson.
“You could do it that way, but it’s not a prerequisite to approve a final plat,” Plummer said. “Typically, the plat shows the easement. But you can come in at a later time, and when you have the easement in hand, you can file it. ...”
Commissioner Jeff Longbine agreed with Johnson’s concerns, but held a different point of view on approving the PUD.
“I know it is the commissioners’ express desire to have contract negotiations with tenants as far along as possible before we sign the development agreement ... but if we were to approve a final plat tonight, and the landowner would have sole responsibility for detention, probably puts us in a better position for contract negotiations including defining what we want to take responsibility for and what we don’t want to take responsibility for,” he said.
Tom Thoreson of D.J. Christie said he was pleased with the approval, and that it was important to keep the process moving.
“It’s important for us to keep moving, and we’ve got a tight schedule,” Thoreson said. “We have timing in our contract with our sellers and also with our tenant, so anything we can do to continue to keep moving forward and checking off the things that we have to accomplish to make this project happen is very important.”
Describing the point of contention, Thoreson said it was a matter of contract details that are being worked out.
“It was just, call it the uncertainty of a document that isn’t completed yet, but I think that all interested parties —the developer, the seller — have a vested interest in making sure that the document is complete, that it’s favorable and fair to all parties, and we’ll get it done,” Thoreson said.
In other business, the commission:
Authorized Mayor Bob Agler to sign a proclamation declaring January as Crime Stopper Month.
• Set 2 p.m. Feb. 19 as the time and date to receive proposals for squad cars for the Emporia Police Department.
• Adopted an ordinance raising court fees $10. With the increase, fees for traffic offenses will be $65, and fees for misdemeanor offenses will be $70.
• Approved the purchase of an electronic ticket-writing program in the amount of $94,641, to be paid for with funds from the increased court fees.
• Approved the purchase of a computer evidence-management system for the police department in the amount of $21,762, to be paid for with non-sales tax general fund revenues.
• Rejected proposals for a traffic study on the 18th Avenue bridge. The study was to show whether the bridge needs to be two lanes or four lanes, but commissioners decided it wasn’t necessary to spend $11,000 on a study that will show the obvious: if expansion to the west continues, the bridge eventually has to be expanded into four lanes.
• Approved a resolution adopting a statement outlining the city’s legislative priorities for 2009.
• Approved a request of Deuce Holdings to subdivide a 27-acre plat into two platted lots at 15th Avenue and Hatcher Street.
• Approved a request of Eagle Development to combine two platted lots into one for financing purposes.
• Approved an ordinance amending the 10.5 percent increase in water rates to include two-inch and 10-inch meters.
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
And here I was hoping that the "minor snag" might be THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, but alas, we don't even rank that high. Ah, well, at least they approved every increase of revenue on the agenda for us to pay. To their credit, they didn't spend that study money on something they already have their minds made up about anyway--I guess that's something........of course, if they weren't so bent on immediate westward expansion that bridge might not cost as much--but hey, whatever.
January 22, 2009 at 7:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rabblerouser (anonymous) says...
What the heck is an electronic ticket-writing program? And why does Emporia think it needs one at almost $100,000. Again, this is not Overland Park or Wichita! If they enforced the laws now they would'nt need this expensive program.
January 22, 2009 at 8:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
anonymous123 (anonymous) says...
I think that we should build a second courthouse, or maybe another clock tower!!
January 22, 2009 at 8:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I need to amend one of my statements after reading the KVOE news online. It read:
"Talk arose about a traffic study, but Novak said likely a two-lane bridge is in the future, and one that could have lanes added onto it."
Sincerely to their credit, they are choosing the most efficient solution to the bridge dilemma. I believe that they made an excellent decision here and wish that the Gazette had given the subject a better explanation.
January 22, 2009 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
joecitizen (anonymous) says...
just how many times does this whole development deal have to show that it isn't in our best interests, before the city commision gets their heads out of their ***** and rejects it.
oh, and will longbine and agler be putting in bids on the new patrol cars? Betcha the city attorney won't find any conflicts of interest in that either?
January 23, 2009 at 12:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tell (anonymous) says...
I hope Agler or Longbine get the contract for the new patrol cars after all they are local businesses that employ yours and my neighbors.I would hope just because they are on the commission that they should still be able to do business in this town. I can't wait for the new development to begin I think its great that in these tough times there are developers that still want to invest in our community.What do you provide Joe to benefit this community except negative comments.
January 23, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rcr (anonymous) says...
Interesting that so many have negative opions of the elected officials and todays status is that no on else is running to oppose them. If you truly care about the future and truly think these individuals should be replaced, the filing deadline is Tuesday.
January 23, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Interesting that people can't voice their differing opinions with out someone(rcr) basically telling them to put up or shut up. Man freedom of speech used to look so different. I'm almost to the point of not being proud to be a veteran.
January 23, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tell (anonymous) says...
I am curious how freedom of speech used to look it seems like there is still plenty of it. I think people who costantly critisize elected officials should put up or shut up.I certainly don't agree with every decision made by the commision. How ever I do respect the people who are willing to give their time for the good of the community. I also don't think that anyone on the commision is involved in any underhanded deals so they get special insite on selling cars or what ever their business may be. In the community that we live in someone will always be friends or relitives to a commisioner . I do hope that any purchases or contracts with either the county or the city would come from our local businesses.
January 23, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I just get irritated when people say that if you want to complain you should just run for the office yourself. That is unrealistic. Some of us are still raising our families so if we take away time from being an involved parent to run for office it would actually be worse for the community. And if people don't voice their opinions how do the elected officials know what we think. They are not Johnny Carson and we are not Ed McMahon, we should not just say "YES!" to what ever they do. That should not be how it works. Oh speaking of service maybe you missed the part about me being a veteran. Maybe they serve this little community but I served the country. You are welcome!
January 23, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rcr (anonymous) says...
Point being that with all the uproar over recent actions of the Commission reported in the news, and No one steps up to try and do a better job. Opinions are sacred and your right, but at some point I would have thought that someone else would step up and say, Let me try and change things. That opportunity is open until Tuesday.
January 23, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tell (anonymous) says...
serious
Hey thanks for serving our country and I do truly mean that. As I said I have great respect for the people who serve the community that doesn't stop with just the city commisioners. I also said that I don't agree with everything they say. But it gets a little old reading the constant complaining by some people.If you can't run for office thats understood however no one has stepped up.I think its great that you are a involved parent.I know for a fact that Jeff and Kevin are to.
January 23, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I know for a fact that there are several people weighing their options to see if they can run but for the ones I know this isn't a good time because of their station in life. Hopeful that will change as kids grow and hopefully their fire to change things doesn't fade with time. Another unfortune thing is these people don't have a "name" so they probably wouldn't get any votes anyway. So you will have to either ignore the grumbling from the cheap seats or deal with it.
January 23, 2009 at 6:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
The city council has asked for input about this development (public meetings), and we as tax payers are going to get stuck paying for this debacle, so yes I will gripe if need be. I've already talked to council members both privately and in more public settings, and this latest setback is just one of many signs that this project is not a good idea. You don't have to run for public office to let an official know how you feel about something (pro or con). But, let's recap:
1. We are calling an area "blighted" that isn't. Because the "blighted" area contains greenfield, a TIF begs for a lawsuit.
2. Our own independent data did not identify a large home improvement store as a business we should recruit. The city council agreed to spend $70,000 on a study to identify which types of businesses we should recruit, and listened as the representative of Buxton warned about using tax incentives for businesses not identified as a need. Glad we paid attention...
3. We now have data from other TIF projects in the area that showed surrounding sales tax revenues were hurt by TIF projects, and because sales tax generated on the TIF property goes towards paying off infrastructure costs of the property, a resulting net decrease in sales tax revenue results in funding cuts for programs, departments and infrastructure.
4. Lowe's is a publicly traded company. Look at the stock market. Enough said.
5. Estimating that you will bring in "secondary markets" to shop at our Lowe's when those secondary markets are located in larger primary markets (Topeka, Manhattan, Wichita, KC...) is, shall we say, not smart.
6. In an already stressed economy, this will make a bad situation for pre-existing retailers even worse. Resulting in empty buildings, lower property tax revenues on those buildings (empty buildings decrease in appraised value resulting in lower revenues) and may deal a significant blow to an already struggling mall.
7. For everyone advocating free market capitalism where the fittest business survives, why not make a business like Lowe's pay there own way like all the locals had to do? Unless, that is, you advocate socialized retail.
8. Please link evidence that retail breeds industry (as stated by city leaders). Good luck, because it doesn't happen.
9. Since supply side economics is obviously working sooo well for the nation right now, please explain how we can handle more retail square footage with less population and disposable income.
10. Just let me restate, I'm not antidevelopment, but it must be done correctly. Jobs breed population and disposable income which result in more retail and restaurants capitalizing on more population and disposable income. There are no shortcuts. I know that sucks for people that wish they were living in KC, but please don't mess up Emporia's long term economy so you can feel warm and fuzzy for a few months before businesses start boarding up and the tax base dissolves.
January 23, 2009 at 8:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outdoorsman25 (anonymous) says...
Anyone think Lowes is paying the city commisioners to vote yes all these times to bring Lowes to town?
January 23, 2009 at 9:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
A quiet but audible whisper comes from a "blighted" green field "Build it and they will come." HA HA HA!
January 24, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
For the increasingly small group of people that think this development will not only be a good thing, but that Lowe's is in expansion mode, please read the following:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/31/news/...
Bad placement and bad timing. We need to review our development "strategy".
January 25, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Well, since Lowe's hasn't actually agreed yet, it's all good. (sarcasm) The commissioners have now compromised to everything DJ Christie wanted, right? Do they get their money if Emporia does the developing and still doesn't get the contract? I bet when it's all said and done, Emporia will be economically worse off with less retail and more unemployment, but the developers will have their cut and no worries. I wish these five could understand the old adage about counting their chickens....especially in financially unstable times. Sounds like Johnson has being paying a little bit of attention and wanted to be cautious--this time.
January 25, 2009 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )