Re: Concerns about new Master Plan and Subdivision changes

[Ken Johanson]

Richard, I am attaching the points (PDF format) which I first emailed to the current BOCC members. The items you responded-to below were additional comments from the "other" citizen, which I had subsequently forwarded to Commissioner Goetz.

The PDF begins with points which might seem redundant/obvious. These are listed here only to establish a baseline understanding for citizens unfamiliar with this topic, and basis to later points such as "Business entities choose to locate in towns with high density and predictable growth, yet our new master plan will scatter growth." I would ask you to please respond only to the points which are either incorrect or otherwise might become extra-contentious issues in our county. For the "obvious" / agreed items, you need not reply.

Thank as always for your help and willingness to hear citizen input on this,

Sincerely,
Ken Johanson

Richard Milller wrote:

Hello Commissioners:

 

I’ll address each point in Mr. Johanson’s e-mail and comments by “another citizen”:

 

Item 1.)  Duly noted.

 

Item 2.)  There has been extensive discussion by the Planning Commission and members of the “focus group” who assisted with the update to the Housing section of the Master Plan, regarding the three density areas and the Elbert County Master Plan Map found on page 36 of the Master Plan document.  Pages 40 to 44 (up to the Economic Development Areas section) were eliminated because those are the pages that referenced the 3 “Rural Residential Areas” and the “Density Bonuses” components of the Master Plan.  The adjacency policy, coupled with the density bonuses resulted in monotonous development, one tract after another all the same.  Additionally, several citizens felt that equal rules should apply for all property owners and the adjacency policy meant that those property owners on the eastern portion of the County were very limited because large parcels did not allow them the right to subdivide their property.  Adjacency was replaced with requirements for large blocks of open space within developments and around the perimeter to a buffer between development and surrounding properties.  The Master Plan Map which designated low, medium and high growth areas will ultimately be replaced with a Future Land Use Map which will provide recommended land uses for all areas of the county.  C&DS is currently working on the Future Land Use Map.  Once a draft of the Future Land Use Map is completed, community input meetings will be held and ultimately public hearings will be held for adoption of the Future Land Use Map as part of the Master Plan.         

 

Item 3.)  I totally disagree with this comment.  The Housing component of the Master Plan has been on-going for over 2 years because we were very concerned about providing ample opportunity for public input.  I personally gave Power Point presentations throughout the County at various locations, Board of Realtors luncheons, Chamber of Commerce meetings, and any group that requested a presentation was given a presentation.  All these presentations talked about adjacency and density bonuses and the development pattern that has resulted from those policies.  There was no focus on subdivision changes; these were discussed in context of the Master Plan which is the advisory document for all residential developments proposed in the County. 

 

Item 4.)   See comments in Item 3 above.

 

Item 5.)  The Housing section of the Master Plan was approved by the Planning Commission on March 12^th, 2009 and is now in effect.  Since Minor Developments (those with 7 lots or less), are not required to be processed as Planned Unit Developments and since the Design Standards do not apply to Minor Developments, C&DS would also like the Planning Commission to consider and discuss minimum criteria that should apply to all residential development, including Minor Developments.  For example, consideration should be given as to the suitability and supportability of the development for the communities/areas where the development is being proposed.  This may include a review of density, lot size, size of perimeter lots within the proposed development and buffering, water/sewer issues, open space, and impact to surrounding agricultural uses.  Also, the impact to schools, roads, law enforcement, fire protection, ambulance services, library and social services should be considered and how the developer proposes to address these services concerns.  Additionally, perhaps minimum design standards should be developed for Minor Developments to help insure higher-quality development and compatibility with surrounding land uses.  These items would be appropriate for discussion at the Planning Commission work session scheduled for May 14^th.

 

Thanks,

 

Richard

 

    

---

From: Hope Goetz [mailto:hope....@elbertcounty-co.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:28 PM
To: Richard L. Miller
Subject: Fw: Concerns about new Master Plan and Subdivsion changes

 

Richard,

Please comment on these items for us and return to me.

Thanks

Hope

----- Original Message -----

From: Ken Johanson

To: Hope Goetz

Cc: elbertc...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:57 AM

Subject: Re: Concerns about new Master Plan and Subdivsion changes

 

Hello Hope, thank you very much for your reply. Please read these numbered comments by another citizen, in response to your question, I believe they sum it up rather well:

1)  The changes for subdivision applications are good and effective, and provide a much more effective approach than adjacency for subdivisions.  

 

2)  However, the manner in which the specific Master Plan page substitutions were selected results in the abolishment of all adjacency for all land use applications in the County, and eliminates the Master Plan map and all density constraints previously in place for rural high, medium and low development for all land use applications in the county.  

 

3)  The abolishment of all adjacency for all land use applications in the county was never part of the extensive public dialogue that focused on the subdivision changes, and reaches far beyond the subdivision changes themselves.   A better choice of page substitutions in the Master Plan needs to be found. 

 

4)  Abolishment of all adjacency requirements on all land use applications is premature at this point.  More work needs to be done, and a viable process for public involvement is already in place to do it. 

 

5)  We believe it is mandatory that we revisit the implementation of these good improvements for subdivision applications, at the same time continuing work on a similarly effective alternative to adjacency for other land use applications.   That means returning the entire package for much needed work before it can take effect.

Please, let me know if I can provide more details about any part of this.. I also ask that you PLEASE confer with the other BOCC members, so we can sure they are fully aware of these points.

Thank you,

Ken Johanson, behalf of Elbert County concerned citizens.

Hope Goetz wrote:

Dear Ken,

I am in the process of reading this, but fail to see a problem. We have several citizens who have raised concerns about different issues and we can't please everyone, but still looking for issues of concern.

Thanks

Hope

----- Original Message -----

From: Ken Johanson

To: hope.goetz@elbertcounty-co..gov ; del.schwab@elbertcounty-co..gov ; john.s...@elbertcounty-co.gov

Cc: elbertc...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 1:21 PM

Subject: Concerns about new Master Plan and Subdivsion changes

 

Dear Commissioners,

A concerned group of citizens is asking that you please read the points below, and if you find any of these to be inaccurate, please reply with your thoughts. We also ask that you send the pending Master Plan and Subdivision documents back to the Community and Development Services (Planning Department) staff and require that protections against these concerns be added back into the documents.

In summary we are concerned that the dramatic and wholesale removal of the regulations which limited where new development can occur (the Land Use Map and Adjacency criteria, and no replacement Proximity or Compatibly criteria), especially in agricultural areas, will create immense new burdens on our services, result in even more county debt, bad credit rating, and increased taxes. The changes also insure that developers have more legal basis to initiate suits against the county, even if the Planning Commission or BOCC objects to a application, because only written regulations offer strong protection (whereas, removing these regulations is an endorsement of the hopscotch growth). Citizens may also be more compelled to challenge new developments, and yet, have even less legal points to protect them.

Thank you,

Ken Johanson,
Elbert County Resident

[Ken Johanson]

All,

At Thursday night's Planning Commission meeting I tried to bring the compatibility-criteria up for discussion as per Richard's suggestion below, but the attendees chose not to discuss it at this time. After the meeting I also asked Richard what tools and processes we have right now to assess the costs of the new developments scenarios possible under the new Master Plan, and he stated we would need to hire staff or a firm to determine this.

I am responding to Richard's reply, below.

Richard Miller wrote:

Hello Commissioners:

 

I’ll address each point in Mr. Johanson’s e-mail and comments by “another citizen”:

 

Item 1.)  Duly noted.

 

Item 2.)  There has been extensive discussion by the Planning Commission and members of the “focus group” who assisted with the update to the Housing section of the Master Plan, regarding the three density areas and the Elbert County Master Plan Map found on page 36 of the Master Plan document.

I cannot agree with use of the word "extensively". The reason for removing page 36 (and what if anything it would be replaced by) received very little discussion, both at the focus group mtgs and public workshops (I am aware of at least one certain regular attendee of the focus group meetings did not realize it was being removed until the last 6 months of the focus group meetings). Each time I brought removing the land use map as a concern for discussion, the discussion was short-lived, when I was told that we would keep the map or other times told a revised might be ready in time for the final MP.

Presently, Richard has stated the intention for the new MP and Zoning and Subdiv regulation to go into effect WITHOUT a date certain Future Land Use map, only that one MAY be developed sometime in the future...

  Pages 40 to 44 (up to the Economic Development Areas section) were eliminated because those are the pages that referenced the 3 “Rural Residential Areas” and the “Density Bonuses” components of the Master Plan.  The adjacency policy, coupled with the density bonuses resulted in monotonous development, one tract after another all the same.

While I agree there is some negative effect in monotony, are we convinced that throwing out radial growth is a means to reduce it? Can breaking this monotony be accomplished through new site design standards, or is breaking monotony achieved by separating developments by 1/4 or 1 or 3 miles (as is now allowed)? On the flip side will having no radial growth regulation have a negative effect on our rural farm land appearance, or usefulness? Is monotony a visual concern expressed by residents living next to imminent urban growth areas, will this also be expressed by farm land residents even 10 miles from towns?

During the MP focus groups, we discussed objective/measured alternatives to adjacency (proximity for example) -- ones which were much more friendly to development -- but they were rejected (I would not suspect monotony was a basis for their rejection).

  Additionally, several citizens felt that equal rules should apply for all property owners and the adjacency policy meant that those property owners on the eastern portion of the County were very limited because large parcels did not allow them the right to subdivide their property.

Since residents in any part of the county COULD subdivide into agricultural (A and A-1) lots sizes from larger ones with the old adjacency rule (which only applied to non-ag lots sizes below 35 acres), I presume this refers to land owners in the east-county who desired higher density than ag sizes. Presumably they are also reasonably close to county services or business (or other motivating factors for people to buy small-lot homes in the east). The "proximity" alternative to adjacency could have allowed for this. However if those land owners are NOT close to services/businesses, does allowing development into non-ag lots densities negatively impact our county services and taxpayers (and buyers, commuting and service burdens being proportional to distance)?

In making our new Master Plan devoid of land-use map and radial growth regulations, I believe we are ENDORSING the kind of development those were meant to limit. One can argue we are now LEGALLY ENTITLING that new development, and we NO LONGER regard those to be negative effects. Should we decide to refuse applications without measured reasons to refuse them, our county may face lawsuits. Speculators can buy 40 or 400 acre farm land RIGHT NOW anywhere in our county and expect to sell "5 acre views of Pike's peak", even while we have don't seem to have a short or long term impact analysis/estimate on our fiscal/taxpayer and agriculture. And it is unclear if our new transportation plan's traffic estimates reflect what our land-use distribution will ultimately be.

  Adjacency was replaced with requirements for large blocks of open space within developments and around the perimeter to a buffer between development and surrounding properties.

While I feel open space is has benifits, for fair comparison, it has some some noteworthy effects that are the opposite of adjacency. It: a) raises homeowner costs (higher density homes near town costs less), it increases the rate at which ag land is turned over (it doubles the rate given 50% open space), and the cost to provide services to 1000 new homes, spread over 100 sq miles differs substantially from 50sq m (in the case of PUDs). In the strictest sense I don't feel open space can be considered a replacement for adjacency or some other radial growth.

  The Master Plan Map which designated low, medium and high growth areas will ultimately be replaced with a Future Land Use Map which will provide recommended land uses for all areas of the county.  C&DS is currently working on the Future Land Use Map.  Once a draft of the Future Land Use Map is completed, community input meetings will be held and ultimately public hearings will be held for adoption of the Future Land Use Map as part of the Master Plan.  

Here again I believe removing the land use Map during that interim map's development, which itself could take 1 - 2 years, was too dramatic a change. As I understand, the old land use map doesn't explicitly conflict with the new Housing Section, and yet would have provided measured, legal protection from negative growth types. I think it is critical that we restore a land use and density map as soon as possible. The old map may be less contentious and time consuming than a new one will be.

      

 

Item 3.)  I totally disagree with this comment.  The Housing component of the Master Plan has been on-going for over 2 years because we were very concerned about providing ample opportunity for public input.  I personally gave Power Point presentations throughout the County at various locations, Board of Realtors luncheons, Chamber of Commerce meetings, and any group that requested a presentation was given a presentation.  All these presentations talked about adjacency and density bonuses and the development pattern that has resulted from those policies.  There was no focus on subdivision changes; these were discussed in context of the Master Plan which is the advisory document for all residential developments proposed in the County.

Perhaps the point he was making here, is that it was not fully clear to citizens at those presentations, that adjacency AND the ;land use map were being removed altogether (with substitute). In Powerpoint presentations given to the public by the planning department (which I have record), the negative effect of adjacency AND smart growth was indeed described to be "monotonous" developments, that was about the only inference that adjacency and the map would be removed. In the very least, I feel the potential consequences of NOT having replacements, weren't described to the citizens.

 

Item 4.)   See comments in Item 3 above.

 

Item 5.)  The Housing section of the Master Plan was approved by the Planning Commission on March 12^th, 2009 and is now in effect.  Since Minor Developments (those with 7 lots or less), are not required to be processed as Planned Unit Developments and since the Design Standards do not apply to Minor Developments, C&DS would also like the Planning Commission to consider and discuss minimum criteria that should apply to all residential development, including Minor Developments.  For example, consideration should be given as to the suitability and supportability of the development for the communities/areas where the development is being proposed.  This may include a review of density, lot size, size of perimeter lots within the proposed development and buffering, water/sewer issues, open space, and impact to surrounding agricultural uses.  Also, the impact to schools, roads, law enforcement, fire protection, ambulance services, library and social services should be considered and how the developer proposes to address these services concerns.  Additionally, perhaps minimum design standards should be developed for Minor Developments to help insure higher-quality development and compatibility with surrounding land uses.  These items would be appropriate for discussion at the Planning Commission work session scheduled for May 14^th.

I do agree, that some or all of these items are better suited for the Zoning or Subdiv docs than the now-advisory Master Plan (if discretionary/subjective makes it more prone to court disputes or conflicts of interest by officials). Even though, the MP would have afforded a bit more of the decision-making flexibility that stirred so much effort in making the MP officially an advisory document..

Thank you for your consideration,

Ken Johanson

--