PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 21, 23, & 30, 2006
Meeting Minutes
________________________________________________________________________
August 21, 2006 – 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Harkins, Harris, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson, and Finkeldei
Staff present: Stogsdill, Guntert, Finger, and Brown
________________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Haase to approve the minutes of the July 24 & 26, 2006 meeting with revisions from staff.
Motion carried 7-0-3, with Commissioners Harris, Krebs, and Lawson abstaining.
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Eichhorn to approve the minutes of the May 22 & 24, 2006 meeting as revised per Study Session discussion.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
T2030: Minutes. The committee met and will meet again on the 24th.
PCCM: Adequacy of 20 year planning horizon and Rural Zoning Ordinance Committee were discussed at the 7/12/2006 Planning Commission mid-month meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 9 – CUP for Midnight Farm
Item 10 – Rezoning for Krause Dining
Items 11A & 11B – Rezoning for Salvation Army
Item 14 – Rezoning for Branham Farms
Item 16 – Consider revisions to Planning Commission By-Laws
Items 122A-C – Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for Wal-Mart
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· Commissioner Finkeldei said he would abstain from Items 9 and 10.
· There were no deferral requests to consider
MISC
· Correspondence deadline for 8/30/06 agenda items extended to 8/30/06 at 10am
· Commissioner Eichhorn suggested communications provided reasons for vote to give more record for the minutes and to provide a record for City Commission
Swearing in of witnesses.
PC Minutes 8/21/06
ITEM NO. 1: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 4 AND 5 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, HORIZON 2020
CPA-2006-01: Hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020, Chapters 4 & 5. The amendments are: to ‘Chapter Four – Growth Management’ and ‘Chapter 5 – Residential’ which pertain to the development criteria for rural residential development in the Unincorporated Area of Douglas County. Associates with text changes in these two chapters are two maps, Map 4-1 and Map 4-2 which depict the criteria that will be used in the evaluation of rural development within the Lawrence UGA, Service Areas 2 through 4, and within the remainder of the Unincorporated Area of Douglas County. There are also changes to the road classifications to the Major Thoroughfare Maps in Chapter 8 [Maps 8-1 and 8-2]. Initiated for public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners on January 25, 2006. This item was tabled from the May Planning Commission meeting.
Items 1, 2 & 3 were heard together.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Guntert introduced the item, proposed amendments to chapters 4 & 5 of the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020. The amendments deal with strengthening language as it would apply to residential development in the unincorporated areas of the county. Guntert also proposed adding two new maps in Chapter 4 depicting potential assessment criteria and road classifications for access management. The maps were examples of some criteria that could be used to evaluate of land use changes. He explained that the blue font color in the document represents proposed new text.
The Planning Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the proposed comprehensive plan amendments to Horizon 2020, for Chapter 4 (Growth Management) and Chapter 5 (Residential Land Use), for the City of Lawrence and unincorporated Douglas County and forward them to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for adoption.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress inquired about the difference between rural subdivision and rural platting and asked if the goal was to eliminate subdivisions in rural areas. Guntert stated that rural subdivision and rural platting are synonymous and that the Planning Commission had discussed eliminating subdivisions in rural areas.
Guntert also pointed out that the Board of County Commissioners proposal was to allow subdivisions in the Rural Area on tracts having a minimum of 80 acres; and subdivisions on tracts of at least 40 acres within the UGA’s, but that this has been eliminated.
Commissioner Haase stated that revisions need to be made but that there is still a need for technical editing that references platting. Page 5-4 needs to be addressed and corrected. Commissioner Haase also asked for clarification that platting is still intended in the unincorporated areas. Stogsdill advised that page 4-9 deals with this problem.
Commissioner Krebs reminded the commission that this item has been before them multiple times and suggested that some form of regulation be passed. She stated that one option would be to move forth on voting for the items and then work on technical cleanups with amendments. They could choose not to take any action and let staff make revisions. Stogsdill recommended that action be taken and
reminded the Commission that Horizon 2020 sets policies and the foundation for regulations. Commissioner Haase said he is willing to move forward with minor changes in these Chapters.
Commissioner Burress stated he didn’t understand the theory and wanted to know if the intention was to plat in rural areas. Guntert responded major subdivisions are being eliminated in the unincorporated areas but that residential development would be allowed in the unincorporated area. All would be subject to a Certificate of Survey to record the new division. If everything is in order then the Certificate of Survey would be approved and then recorded at the Register of Deeds office. Under the new proposals a Build Out Concept would be required that would identify how property would be further developed when annexed by the city.
The commissioners agreed that references to plats for rural residential development be removed from page 4-8.
Commissioner Burress said that without contiguity rules he would not be able to vote for 3 houses on 20 acres. He said that the argument it will usually result in only 2 houses because of the frontage limits is wrong, because economics will drive clever layouts. He said that in one mile on local roads you can fit 5 twenty-acre lots each with over 990 foot frontage and each can split in 3.
Commissioner Harkins requested that Commissioners please reference specific documents and sections when speaking to help him follow the conversation since he is fairly new to the Commission. Commissioner Krebs clarified that they were referring to the Conservation Cluster Development provisions in section 20-804 of the proposed subdivision regulations. She indicated the discussion had pulled in other items on the agenda but that because they are all interwoven it was necessary for a fuller discussion of the issues.
Commissioner Haase stated that there are 4 ways to build residential developments in unincorporated areas under the proposed subdivision regulations:
(sec. 20-805)
Commissioner Krebs said she would like for the Commissioners to be able to articulate text amendments that could be initiated. She also expressed that the map descriptions for maps 4-1 and 4-2 are not well organized. She recommended replacing language to be more applicable with what is shown on the maps.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked how often cities establish their own UGA’s and if there is a plan in place to assist them if the Board of County Commissioners sent a letter to them explaining how the regulations will affect them.
Commissioner Haase made reference to the following:
Commissioner Krebs stated that specific requirements are not thoroughly addressed in the policies. She was not sure that all of those requirements were stated as they should be. She requested that more attention be given to making sure requirements and criteria in the text match up with the policies at the end of the Chapters.
Commissioner Erickson expressed concern for keeping the contiguity language in Chapter 5 in order to avoid leapfrog developments.
Commissioner Burress agreed and suggested wording be changed to the recommendations from the League of Women Voters.
Commissioner Harkins stated that this was a confusing discussion. It didn’t sound like there was any kind of consensus and wanted to know exactly what they were expected to vote on.
Commissioner Krebs clarified that they would vote on the proposed amendment as it stands, but make separate recommendations for changes.
Commissioner Haase said that the discussion must be well documented as a heads up to the Governing Bodies that this is a work in progress.
Commissioner Erickson wanted to add corrections as discussed in the study session:
Commissioner Harris also stated that on page 5-8 the word “different” is too vague and that perhaps it should also be changed.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked staff what would happen if for some reason this request is voted down. Stogsdill replied that the Governing Bodies will take action based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Burress stated that settlement on 5 acre exemption is an improvement but that he would like further discussion on changing minimum acreage in the Rural Area [H2020, pg 5-5] from 5 acres to 3 acres. It was pointed out that 3 acres was the minimum area allowed by County Sanitary Code if there was rural water available.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Eichhorn to approve the amendments to Chapters 4 & 5 of the Comprehensive Plan (Horizon 2020), and forward them to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. In Chapter 4:
· move text on page 4-5 describing Map 4-1 to page 4-2 to replace text in last paragraph;
· page 4-6. change “County Commissioner” in last line of paragraph 1 and last line of paragraph 3 to “Subdivision Regulations”;
· page 4-7. change bracketed statement in Policy 1.1 to read: “[based on adopted development policies of each incorporated community in Douglas County]”;
· page 4-7. Policy 1.1c. – change “should” to “shall” in the first line;
· page 4-9. Policy 1.3.1 b. – change policy to read: “Require developments within the UGAs to undergo an administrative review procedure.”;
· page 4-10. Policy 2.1 – add to the second line after ‘growth centers and’ the following “to be in near proximity to”;
2. In Chapter 5:
· page 5-5. Delete from the second sentence in the first paragraph the ending phrase, “and larger acreages for platted subdivisions.”;
· page 5-5. In the 4th paragraph, remove from the first sentence, first line “and Planning Areas” and revise the second sentence to read: “Criteria which could support the location of a subdivision within the Urban Growth Areas…”;
· page 5-12 Policy 1.4 a. Delete from the second sentence the ending phrase, “when development is not contiguous to the existing city limits”;
· page 5-13. Policy 2.2. Revise this policy to read: “Discourage development of land for urban density residential purposes in the unincorporated rural area beyond the designated UGAs in so far as it would conflict with or inhibit agricultural use of the land.”;
Motion carried, 8-1-1, with Commissioner Burress in opposition and Commissioner Finkeldei abstaining.
Commissioner Burress explained that he voted no because he feels the recommended text change weakens policy instead of strengthening it.