PC Minutes 8/21/06
ITEM NO. 2: ADOPTION OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR LAWRENCE AND THE UNICORPORATED AREA OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, JANUARY 26, 2006 EDITION
TA-01-02-06: Pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. Chapter 12, Article 7, consider making a recommendation on the adoption of “Subdivision Regulations for Lawrence and the Unincorporated Area of Douglas County, January 26, 2006 Edition.” This set of regulations replaces Chapter 21 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, with Article 8 in the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Chapter 20 of the Code of the City of Lawrence [adopted July 1, 2006] and replaces in its entirety Article 11 in the County Code, thereby establishing new standards for rural residential development and updated subdivision design standards and development criteria for the platting of lands within the incorporated limits of Lawrence and within the Unincorporated Area of Douglas County. The “Subdivision Regulations, January 26, 2006 Edition” is a general and complete revision of the City of Lawrence and Douglas County’s existing, jointly adopted Subdivision Regulations [re: Ordinance No. 5257 and Resolution No. 81-11, and amendments there to] and as such, affects all divisions of land within the corporate limits of the City of Lawrence and the unincorporated area of Douglas County. The “Subdivision Regulations, January 26, 2006 Edition” is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in this notice. Copies of the “Subdivision Regulations, January 26, 2006 Edition” are available for review at the Office of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department, City Hall, 6 E. 6th Street, Lawrence, Kansas. The “Subdivision Regulations, January 26, 2006 Edition” is also available at www.lawrenceplanning.org. TA-01-02-06 and TA-01-03-06, AND CPA-2006-01 are companion documents that together create new Rural Development Regulations within the existing zoning and subdivision regulations of Douglas County. Initiated for public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners on January 25, 2006. This item was deferred from the May Planning Commission meeting to allow consideration of alternate text drafted by a sub-committee of the Planning Commission. The alternate text is also posted at www.lawrenceplanning.org.
Items 1, 2 & 3 were heard together.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Guntert, recommended the Planning Commission take action to approve the proposed new Subdivision Regulations for the City of Lawrence and Unincorporated Area of Douglas County and forward them to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for adoption.
PUBLIC HEARING
Lewis Phillips spoke and said his family owns a farm ½ mile south of Midland Junction in the UGA that has 133 acres and 3 houses on the property. He stated that he sold 1 house two years ago. He wants to sell the other two houses but was told he would have to do a transitional plat to sell them. His intent is to leave 120 acres as agricultural. He expressed concern that the cost to plat the land would outweigh the profit of selling the houses. In addition to selling the houses, there are 2 acres between the railroad and U.S. Highway 59 that he would like to rezone as light industrial. In total, his property has 3,000’ lineal feet of road frontage for access along road and highways.
Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Phillips if the 3 houses already exist on his land. Mr. Phillips replied yes.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if all 3 houses have rural water and Phillips replied yes.
Guntert stated that the Conservation Cluster Development option doesn’t work because the parcel size is greater than 40 acres. The Build Out Plan would need to be done and 60% of the property would be eligible for development.
Commissioner Krebs inquired about if the land needed to be divided in order to sell it and when lot splits apply.
Guntert replied that residential property divisions would be created as well as parcel divisions.
Stogsdill stated that lot splits apply when there is platted property.
Commissioner Haase said that there was nothing written in the proposed regulations that addresses existing structures. He felt that it should be possible to include an administrative process to accommodate existing structures.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Mr. Phillips if any of his land is in the floodplain area. Mr. Phillips replied no, not on any maps that he has seen.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harkins asked if it would be possible to get a legal opinion on whether these regulations apply to existing developed properties.
Stogsdill stated that the County counsel can be consulted.
Commissioner Haase stated that special provisions will be needed in dealing with land divisions of existing real estate.
Commissioner Krebs asked for clarification from Commissioner Haase of Commissioner Burress’ comment about 3 vs. 2 splits in the rural areas and the various options proposed in the UGA.
Commissioner Haase stated that Conservation Cluster Development would be used within the UGA, on properties containing less than 40 acres, of which 40% would be used for conservation easement. 60% of parcel could be developed in 3 acre sites. Outside the UGA, a parent parcel of 20 acres or more could be split once.
Commissioner Finkeldei questioned that if a property was inside the UGA, and was less than 40 acres but greater than 20 acres, and there was no land worthy of conservation would nothing be able to be done until the land is annexed?
Commissioner Haase stated that if the Conservation Cluster Development option is not available because there are no resources to conserve and there are no vested rights for development of the property, then it would need to function as agricultural land until annexed.
Commissioner Finkeldei referenced section 20-805, which states that 60% of the land can be developed now and 40% later. He asked what would happen if a person only had 25 acres. Why can’t the 40:60 split option apply to a property that has less than 40 acres?
Commissioner Jennings stated that anything less than 16 acres; (which is 40% of 40 acres) not much can be done for future planning purposes with a smaller tract of land.
Commissioner Haase indicated that the 40 acre minimum came from a consultant’s study in Lincoln/Lancaster County. The preferable size for future planning purposes was 160 acres.
Commissioner Eichhorn added that this tool (the 40 acre minimum) allowed a large enough tool to plan for future development.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that as land is voluntarily annexed it will be part of a tool in getting larger acreage that can be redeveloped.
Commissioner Finkeldei restated his new understanding, based on the conversation, that if the land is less than 40 acres it is not large enough to plan effectively with. Commissioner Eichhorn responded that this was correct.
Commissioner Krebs asked what can be built now in the UGA. Would someone need to buy an existing parcel that was legally created? For clarification, she stated that vested rights applied to all legally created divisions. One building permit per division is allowed if the division was legally created prior to adoption of these new regulations and all current sanitation requirements are met.
Commissioner Harkins asked if it was legal to plat a 10 acre lot in the UGA.
Guntert responded that the existing subdivision regulations do not allow exemptions for the UGA. The 10 acre provision was related to the exemption section, therefore it does not apply to property in the UGA.
Commissioner Burress asked what is gained by exchanging platting for a Certificate of Survey. Dedication of rights of way? What is the Planning Commission giving up and why aren’t plats given up in the UGAs.
Commissioner Haase responded that currently, plats come before the Planning Commission (for review and approval) and that they go the Governing Bodies as de novo hearing items. The County Commission wanted a more administrative process. The big difference is that the Planning Commission is in the process for rural development. Commissioner Haase also stated that the platting process should not be so easily dismissed and that there should be more ways to make the process administrative. He believed that Eudora, Baldwin City and Lecompton may be so ‘disengaged’ by this new process that they will try to set up a separate three mile jurisdiction for platting and subdivisions.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if what they were talking about was that a 20 acre parcel could be split one time. Guntert clarified that this was what was initiated by the Board of County Commissioners. Since that time, there had been discussions with County Commissioners about dropping the platted subdivisions in the rural unincorporated area. In response to this, Commissioner Johnson had proposed there be 2 splits allowed for a 20 acre parcel in the rural area. For those who did not know, he reminded the Commission that the RPC’s recommendation had been for a 40 acre parcel with one split.
Commissioner Haase discussed section 804(c)(2)(iv) dealing with permanent conservation easement. He suggested striking “until the land is annexed by the City” because he believed the BOCC agreed that this was acceptable (i.e., that the conservation easement would be permanent).
Commissioner
Lawson was concerned that permanency was a long time and did not think it
should be limited forever. He recalled spirited debate about the issue of
permanency but did not recall that it had been settled. He supports the text
as it was proposed by the County Commission is.
Commissioner Eichhorn pointed out that discussion of the issue of permanency had continued at the last joint meeting of Planning Commissioners with County Commissioners and the County Commissioners had said that “conservation means conservation”.
Commissioner Haase did not feel this (conservation-cluster option) was the best vehicle for conservation. He felt that sites subject to permanent easement must be “worthy,” based on criteria and felt that sites should be targeted for conservation.
Commissioner Erickson asked if section 20-804 (e)(3) helped alleviate concerns.
Commissioner Haase recommended deleting from section 20-804(2)(vi) the last sentence of the first paragraph.
Commissioner Harkins asked what the compensation was for the conservation easement, as you can’t take a person’s land for conservation purposes without compensation.
Commissioner Haase replied that this was not a taking. That there was no requirement that land had to be given in a conservation easement. As a requirement for development, this was an exchange of rights.
Commissioner Harkins indicated that if a conservation easement is taken, it can cause all kinds of havoc without an agreement for long-term maintenance of the easement.
Commissioner Krebs read section (2)(iii) that states “permanently conserved.” She wondered if permanent easements could be created without a 3rd party.
Discussion ensued among Commissioners regarding the rights, usage and long-term maintenance of conservation easements. Commissioner Krebs asked staff to follow up with legal counsel to determine if permanent conservation easements can be created without a 3rd party.
Commissioner Burress stated that permanent easements could create useless pieces of land, making them hard to use. He wondered how to eliminate the ability to build across lot lines because nothing prohibits this in current regulations.
Stogsdill and Guntert both stated that there is nothing that would prevent building across lot lines in the proposed regulations.
Commissioner Haase said that the Build Out Plan would help with this issue.
Commissioner Haase stated that he thought the 35 dwellings for a single outlet in section 20-810 should be 25 as that is what the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recommends.
Stogsdill replied that the fire code sets the standard at 35 and it would be good to be consistent across city codes with one number.
Guntert added that staff believes section 20-804 and 20-805, to be consistent with the intent in Horizon 2020, should have a requirement added to each that there be the execution of an agreement to annex or not protest annexation.
Stogsdill pointed out that the City recently adopted revised language for extraordinary setbacks along a portion of US 40 (20-814) and that this should be incorporated into the new subdivision regulations.
Guntert addressed the letter of comments and concerns from the League of Women Voters, regarding the draft Subdivision Regulations. The following are sections of the Rural Subdivision Regulations that the LWV would like changes made to:
Suggested changes to the draft modified Rural Subdivision Regulations:
Commissioner Lawson asked Scott Schultz, Rural Water District #4, about opening new roads and if the rules allow it. Schultz replied yes, if property owners upgrade the road.
Commissioner Lawson expressed his opposition to this.
The Commissioners continued to discuss each section identified by the LWV letter and whether or not they agreed with the proposed changes.
ACTION TAKEN
Commissioner Krebs summarized the changes that seemed to have consensus and indicated section 806 should be voted on separately.
Commissioner Erickson indicated that a revision was needed to 20-806(2) to change the subsections from (a) to (e) to (a) to (d), as (e) had been removed.
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Eichhorn, for amendment to include changes to section 20-806 (d)(1) to insert “does not result in the creation of any minimum maintenance or full maintenance new roads or new r-o-w or easements.”
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Burress to change language [sec 20-806(c)(1)] from 20 acres to 40 acres.
Commissioner Eichhorn said he would vote against the text amendment because this document was too important to be held up. The RPC’s document (in its entirety) was a better document but what is in front of the commission today is acceptable.
Commissioner Harris agreed with Commissioner Eichhorn that his was a practical standpoint.
Commissioner Haase believed this amendment would require the City Commission and County Commission to come together and figure out the solution.
Motion failed, 4-5, with Commissioners Burress, Erickson, Haase and Krebs voting in favor. Commissioners Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Harris, and Jennings voted in opposition. Commissioner Lawson was not present.
Commissioner Lawson left at 11pm.
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Eichhorn to adopt the Subdivision Regulations with changes, starting with the ones modified by the staff report, version 2, for sections 20-804, 20-805, 20-806; the changes agreed to from the League of Women Voter’s letter, and the list of grammatical changes that Commissioner Erickson had presented to staff during the meeting.
Motion carried, 8-1, with Commissioner Finkeldei in opposition.
Commissioner Lawson had left the meeting prior to the vote.
Commissioner Krebs summarized discussion points that had been identified for future text amendments.
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Haase, to initiate four text amendments:
· Modify definition of Area Plans to include plans identified in the Hierarchy of Plans.
· Modify 805 to include agreement not to protest annexation.
· Section 809 needs clarification that plats are required for non-residential development.
· Section 805(c)(1) needs clarification that access to hard surface road does not mean that the internal streets must be paved.
Motion carried, 9-0, with Commissioner Lawson not present.
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Haase, to extend the meeting until 11:45pm
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Haase, to initiate text amendment to change the Parks language to “require” rather than “suggest.”
Motion failed, 4-5, with Commissioners Burress, Erickson, Haase and Harris voting in favor. Commissioners Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Jennings and Krebs voted in opposition. Commissioner Lawson was not present.
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to initiate the development of the tools necessary to implement the recommendations contained in the Horizon 2020 Parks chapter.
Motion carried, 8-1, with Commissioner Jennings in opposition and Commissioner Lawson not present.