Meeting Information
-Convene
CONSENT AGENDA
(1)(a) Consider approval of Commission Orders;
REGULAR AGENDA
(2) Consider recommendations from ECO2 Commission for changes to ECO2 Plan, and discuss proposal for Baldwin Woods Open Space Project (Larry McElwain)
(3) (a) Consider approval of and authorization for the Chairman to sign the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization Re-Designation Agreement for Cooperative Transportation Planning (Todd Girdler)
(b) Consider selection of a voting member for the re-designated Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (Todd Girdler)
(4) Consider approval and discussion of Build-Out-Plan requirements and possible revisions to the policy (Linda Finger)
(5) Other Business
(a) Consider approval of Accounts Payable (if necessary)
(b) Appointments
(c) Miscellaneous
(d) Public Comment
(6) Adjourn
Johnson called the regular session meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 with all members present.
CONSENT AGENDA
There were no Consent Agenda items.
ECO2 & BOARDS 10-29-08
The Board discussed recommendations from ECO2 Commission to make changes to ECO2 Plan, and discuss proposal for Baldwin Woods Open Space Project. Larry McElwain, Chairman; Bob Rhoton, Vice Chairman, and Trudy Rice, Member, were present for the discussion. McElwain explained that these recommended changes have come about after work that has been done in evaluating sites for both open space and industrial development. The changes are needed in order to bolster the plan and make it clearer and easier to evaluate.
Jones questioned whether the recommendation was unanimous or split. McElwain stated that the recommendation was unanimous.
Johnson questioned whether the Board felt like the agricultural community at large was on board with this. He stated that he would prefer that it be something like what the USDA guidelines are.
Rhoton stated that they were not further defining Class I and Class II -- that is a USDA definition.
Johnson stated that he understood that the City Commission is considering a change to Chapter 7 in the industrial section of Horizon 2020 and some of the proposed verbage speaks to the idea that you cannot have industrial development on Class I and Class II agricultural land. If that happens, we will have literally limited the ownership of that land to agricultural use. Do we run the risk of through the back door harming ECO2 by default making Class I and Class II agricultural land permanently designated as agricultural as opposed to any other use and thereby creating more open space than we need in our community. If by virtue of our industrial zoning, we preclude the right for anything other than agricultural, we have, in effect, created 10-20% of our county into open space.
McElwain stated that the same thing was presented to the City, but this has not yet been scheduled on their agenda. He also stated that he hoped that ECO2 would be involved in that discussion.
Johnson noted that while he is 100% in agreement with ECO2's changes and definition of Class I and Class II being preserved for agriculture, he is not in favor of it being precluded from any other use through the Industrial Chapter of Horizon 2020. In order for ECO2 and its mission to be accomplished, somebody has to fund the acquisition of this space. How are you going to convince the governing body that they should use taxpayers' money to fund something when by zoning you've precluded anything else happening1/2 Why would you as a commissioner sit here and agree to spend thousands of dollars to acquire Class I Class II farmland for open space when your other document says it can't be anything but open space1/2
Jones stated that he didn't see that this has anything to do with the acquisition of land to preserve open space. The only thing this addresses is where you would preclude industrial development, but he wasn't aware of anyone talking about spending money to acquire 8-10% of farmland.
McElwain noted an example that if something with Class I or Class II soils was going to be used as industrial space, the Board might ask ECO2 as the city did on the 87 acre site, to run it through the numbers to see where the map comes out. Ultimately, it would then be in the County Commission and Planning Commission's hands to determine whether to use it as industrial development. This is a guideline.
Johnson stated that his issue wasn't with this document, but with the zoning issue. We could, if in fact the zoning issues prevails and Class I/Class II soil cannot be used for industrial, we have by default created all the open space you need and there will be no justification for any governmental entity financing the acquisition of endangered Class I/Class II land for an ECO2 goal.
McElwain suggested that ECO2 follow-up with the City regarding the proposed Chapter 7 amendments to see if maybe ECO2's definition could be used to incorporate the proposed Chapter 7 amendments.
It was the consensus of the Board to accept the suggested amendments, but to defer official action until the issues regarding the proposed Chapter 7 amendments to Horizon 2020 were resolved.
PLANNING 10-29-08
Consider approval of and authorization for the Chairman to sign the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization Re-Designation Agreement for Cooperative Transportation Planning and selection of a voting member for the Re-Designated Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization. Todd Girdler, staff member of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, presented this item.
Girdler explained that this agreement has been in the works for approximately fifteen (15) months. It has been extensively reviewed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which includes representatives from the Kansas Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission and local governments in our metropolitan area. The draft agreement has also been reviewed by the Lawrence, Douglas County and KDOT legal staffs.
In 1982, when we became an MPO eligible area, a simple agreement was formed to designate the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission as the entity to do and be the MPO. The last Federal Transportation Act Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act, strongly encourages MPOs to be formed with a policy board composed primarily of local elected officials. Douglas County is the last of the Kansas MPOs to come forward with a redesignation to bring our entity into conformance with the current regulations. The MPO has two major functions. The first function is to be a regional forum for the discussion and prioritization of transportation projects and issues and to have that discussion at a regional scale. The second major function is to be a programmer of federal aid to implement what we've deemed necessary as needs and projects that are needed in the region. It has a very practical gatekeeper function for federal funding for highways and transit, but it also has this purpose of being this regional forum to discuss these transportation issues on a regional basis. With that in mind, it makes sense to have the local elected officials in the mix on the policy board.
Jones stated that he was struggling with the representation. For example, an individual appointed to the Planning Commission has the same vote as the County Commission. With the combined population of Eudora, Lecompton and Baldwin being approximately 12,000, it d sn't make sense that they have the same vote as someone representing 110,000.
Girdler explained that MPOs are necessary because we have an urbanized area that has a population over 50,000. That's the trigger for having an MPO. Most of that urbanized area is the City of Lawrence. There are two commissioners from the City of Lawrence and one from the County Commission. That was done in part because more than one County Commissioner would create a majority of the County Commission which would create open meetings issues.
Jones suggested that the County Commissioner be granted two votes. He stated he felt like would be disproportionate. He also stated that he was not comfortable with an appointed individual having the same vote as an elected official.
Johnson stated that he thought the theory is that the City is representing a population of approximately 80,000 with two representatives, theoretically, the County representative is representing all of the incorporated area who d s not have representation. He noted that he was not uncomfortable with the representation.
Jones stated that he would like the County Commission's votes to count the same as the City Commission. He felt like the City and County were equal partners in the transportation issues and the County's vote should be as strong as the City's vote. He requested that the Board defer action until a later date.
No action was taken.
PLANNING & BUILD-OUT PLANS 10-29-08
The Board discussed the Build-Out-Plan requirements and possible revisions to the policy. Linda Finger, Planning Resource Coordinator, was present for the discussion.
Finger explained that the Commission had asked for a report on the additional cost that a Build-Out Plan adds to the Certificate of Survey process and if there is a way to minimize or reduce this cost while still achieving future planning for property within the Urban Growth Area (UGA).
The following is an illustrative table of comparative costs:
Survey Cost
Build-Out Plan (BOP) Cost
Total Cost
Increase in Total Cost with a Build-Out Plan
$2000
$1500
$3500
43%
$3500
$1500
$5000
30%
$5000
$3000
$8000
39%
Finger explained that she asked the surveyors and engineers what could have been done to reduce the cost. Their response was that reducing the detail from lots to streets and blocks would reduce the cost by about 50%. Getting down to the detail of the lots and easements along lots is what they put so much time into.
Jones asked whether Finger saw any drawback in becoming more general in the information request.
Finger stated she and the Scott McCollough, Director of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, felt that it was really more helpful to be more general. It would still meet the planning goals for connectivity without asking for an unreasonable level of detail that may never materialize.
Jones stated that he could see where it could be an advantage to the landowner to know where the lot lines would lie so they don't build their house between two lots. However, that's up to them to decide.
Johnson stated that the real objective was to discourage the likelihood that buildings would be built in what ought to be road right-of-way, sewer easement or power line easement. If we can do that, then we've done a giant step toward the orderly development in the future.
Johnson questioned whether it was a reasonable expense to put on the property owner even after reducing the cost for the Build-Out Plan by 50% (the survey costs would remain the same).
Finger stated she felt like it was a reasonable expense.
Johnson noted that since these text amendments will need to be presented to the Planning Commission at their December meeting, then return to the County Commission for final approval, he would like to be able to administratively approve any potential Build-Out Plans during the interim.
Finger suggested that a directive to the Planning Director indicating that desire be included in the motion.
Johnson made a motion to initiate the proposed amendments to the Build-Out Plan requirements as outlined in Linda Finger's memorandum dated October 29, 2008, including the definition for Build-Out plan in the Subdivision Regulations and that the County Administrator be directed to notify the Planning Director that the County Commission would like to have the appeal opportunity on any Build-Out Plans in process or that are submitted during the time from this initiation forward once they have been denied if they don't go to the lot level. Motion was seconded by McElhaney and carried unanimously.
ACCOUNTS PAYBLE 10-29-08
Jones moved to approve accounts payable in the amount of $12,679.78 to be paid on 10/31/08. Motion was seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously.
Jones moved to adjourn the meeting; Johnson seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
____________________________ ____________________________
Bob Johnson, Chairman Jere McElhaney, Vice-Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Jamie Shew, County Clerk Charles Jones, Member
Time and Date