Memorandum to Commission

Subject:	Proposed Development Code and Implementation of new Zoning Regulations
Date:	July 20, 2004
Staff:	Linda M. Finger and David Corliss

This memorandum is to provide an update & progress report on the proposed zoning regulations and to provide an implementation plan for the “next steps” in the adoption process for the new development code.   The update will provide background on the code development process, staff work on the proposed code since February’s presentation of the Planning Commission’s recommendations to the City Commission at a joint study session, the status of the second element of the new development code – the subdivision regulations, and an outline of the “next steps” for  implementation of the new code.

Background:

· Current Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations:  These documents were written and adopted over 35 years ago (1966 and 1968 respectively) and have been amended in a piece-meal fashion since adoption. In 1995, the City adopted a new comprehensive plan, HORIZON 2020.  Zoning and Subdivision regulations are two of the primary tools for implementation of goals and policies in a comprehensive land use plan. In recognition of this, in December 1998, the City Commission approved hiring of  a planning consultant,  Duncan Associates, to perform a diagnostic review of the zoning and subdivision regulations to identify areas of these regulations that were either not consistent with the newly adopted comprehensive plan or had not kept pace with state statutes or national planning doctrines.  Upon receipt and completion of the Diagnostic Study in late 1999, the City entered into a contract with Duncan Associates to rewrite the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. 

· Zoning and Codes Advisory Committee (ZAC):  Stakeholder meetings were conducted by the consultants as part of their data gathering process. The Planning Commission determined the stakeholder groups could form a useful tool to the consultant by providing a local “sounding board” on changes to the zoning and subdivision regulations.  An advisory body of nine members was formed by the Planning Commission to meet with staff and the consultant over the course of 18-24 months. Representatives on this board were selected from: the development community (one residential and one commercial representative), the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, the League of Women Voters, local planning consultants, the rural community, the City Commission, and the County Commission.  This committee had no voting authority but did work actively with the consultants to read, review and recommend revisions to each section of the zoning code. In January 2002, a first draft of the new development code was reviewed by ZAC and a list of omission, errors, inconsistencies and other vagaries were identified.  In October 2002, a revised draft zoning code and draft subdivision regulations were reviewed by ZAC, who provided additional advise at that time on revisions to the draft language.

· Planning Commission and Public Listening Sessions:  In May 2003, the draft zoning code was made available to the public through paper and electronic formats. The Planning Commission adopted a schedule of public listening sessions to gather additional information on this document before holding an official public hearing on the new Development Code. Six listening sessions were held to receive input from the different segments of the community, although public comments was not restricted to any specific groups as these listening sessions. Listening sessions provided the Commission an opportunity to consider individual elements of the new code and to hear from specific segments of the community such as the Zoning and Codes Advisory Commission, Neighborhoods, Business and Industry Sector, Special interest groups (e.g. League of Women Voters, Chamber of Commerce), the Education and Institutional Sector, local consultants and developers.

· Planning Commission Review, Official Public Hearing and Recommendation:  The Commission held two official public hearings on the draft code, on in October and one in December 2003.  The intervening period between the December public hearing and the Commission’s action at their January extended meeting (February 11,2004), was spent in work between Commissioner Schachter and planning staff on organizing the myriad of comments received, identifying which were context altering and significant or which were grammatical and similar minor revisions.  The draft document acted upon by the Planning Commission incorporated many revisions, some major and some minor.  Twelve separate revisions were considered by the Planning Commission to the draft code at their January extended meeting. Each was voted upon separately. The full document, as amended, was then voted on by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Commission with a  unanimous recommendation for adoption.

· Planning Commission Joint Meeting with City Commission  to Convey Recommendation:  On February 27^th, the Planning Commission and staff met with the City Commission and reviewed the process followed in review and public outreach on the draft development code. Revisions that were recommended to the draft document were presented.

Progress on the new zoning regulations since the joint meeting:

· Reformatting:  The document acted on by the Planning Commission included by reference those revisions that were acted upon separately at the January extended meeting.  Staff reformatted the draft code to include the amendments recommended by the Commission and to clean up word processing formatting errors.

· Illustrations: A list of illustrations needed to further explain code sections was approved as part of the draft code. The consultants created and inserted illustrations in the draft document based on this list.

· Posting of revised document: When all revisions were completed, staff posted the Planning Commission recommended version of the new development code on the department’s website.

· Identification of Code (formatting) and (Zoning) Map issues:  As a final review of the draft development code before scheduling on a city commission agenda, planning staff worked with the City Manager’s office and with the consultant in identifying and resolving document formatting issues, potential conflicts with other city codes, and conversion of the Word based document to a web-based, interactive code.

· Implementation Plan: A multi-step process was developed for code implementation and a temporary planning assistant was hired to work with the Director to develop supplemental guides to the new code and for the new development process.  Informational bulletins or pamphlets that will be available as a result of this process are a comparison table of existing to new zoning districts for residential, commercial and industrial categories, a flow chart of the development process, applications for all steps in the process and, information on non-conforming use registration, just to name a few.

· Zoning Map Revisions: Adoption of a new zoning code establishes the new zoning districts, special conditions and regulatory review process that will be followed. Tandem to that act, is the adoption of a revised zoning map [re: section20-110(e) of the new code] that will identify individual lots, tracts and parcels in the city by the new zoning district designations. There are seven areas on the zoning map where the transition provided in the new code is not automatic and will require separate initiation by  the Planning or City Commission.  These seven areas were the topic of the Planning Commission’s July mid-month meeting [14^th].  They include five new zoning designations: GPI [General Public & Institutional], OS [Open Space], U [University], H [Hospital], and UR [Urban Reserve]. They also include the CP [Commercial Parking] zoning district (which does not have a comparable district in the new code because development standards are created in the new code to enforce correct transitioning and buffering that were not  in the 1966 zoning code), and smaller, residentially platted lots that are zoned RS-2 today but more appropriately could be rezoned to RS5 (to correct the error made in 1966 when these lots became non-conforming to density and dimensional requirements for the then newly created RS-2 zoning).  The Planning Commission will consider under Miscellaneous on their July 28^th agenda the initiation of these separate map amendments.

·  The ad hoc committee discussing land use regulations with the University of Kansas has met several times to discuss, review and revise a draft cooperation agreement.  Commission consideration of a recommended document is likely in the coming weeks.  The “U” University District provisions will need to be revised to reflect an adopted agreement.

Status of second part of new development code, Subdivision Regulations:

· Original Schedule Altered:  When the Listening schedule was established by the Planning Commission, it was anticipated that the subdivision regulations would be received in late 2003.  Receipt of the regulations later than anticipated and the County Commission’s interest in different standards for development in the newly adopted Urban Growth Boundary have delayed the subdivision regulations from being made public.

· Public Dissemination and Posting on Department Web-site:  Revisions to the exemptions and exceptions sections of the draft Subdivision Regulations were delayed while staff researched cluster development regulations in rural areas and the RPC gathered information on rural development from county residents.  Middle ground has been achieved to allow posting of a draft document that will not include, at this time, specific regulatory changes to the exemptions and exceptions section of the Subdivision Regulations. An explanatory note will accompany the draft document indicating these sections are under discussion by both the County Commission and a subcommittee of the planning commission, the Rural Planning Committee.  Recommendations are anticipated to be forthcoming this year. Paper and electronic copies of the draft Subdivision Regulations are scheduled to be available by August 14^th.

· Schedule of Listening Sessions and Public Hearings:  The Planning Commission will consider at their August 11^th mid-month meeting a schedule for listening sessions and public hearings.

NEXT STEPS: Adoption and Implementation of the new Development Code

The revisions to the draft Development Code since its recommendation from the Planning Commission may not be viewed as substantial.   However, the revisions have not been formally reviewed by either the public or the Planning Commission (e.g. there has not been official notice or a public hearing on these proposed changes).  Additionally, adoption of a City/KU land use agreement will require a change in the U District provisions which can only be adopted by either a super-majority approval of the City Commission or referral and recommendation from the Planning Commission.  Adoption of the Zoning Code by reference is also desired to avoid substantial publication costs.  Staff recommends that the revised Development Code be returned to the Planning Commission for their final review and approval.  This direction to the Planning Commission can also include direction on the “U” District, which should be in a Commission item in August.   An effective date of four months out is recommended for placement into the Code document.   This lead-time is viewed as important for several reasons:  staff training, the conversion of the Code to a web-based format, and public education.  Also, there are other provisions of the City Code which will need to take effect on the delayed effective date of the new Zoning Code (primarily because these City Code sections must reflect new zoning categories).  The primary Code provision in this category is the City Sign Code.  Concurrent with this process, the Zoning Map amendments can be considered.

Recommended Revisions to draft development code recommended by Planning Commission:

Since the February action by the Planning Commission, staff has had additional time to work with the draft document in applying it to different development scenarios or through the process of developing procedural guides for the public. As a result of this, a few minor revisions needed for clarity or correction have become apparent. The intent and purpose of the regulations is not altered by these recommended changes.

· Article 6. Density and Dimensional Standards – Residential Districts: reference notes erroneously refer to setbacks when the intent is lot lines. This should be corrected.   Commercial and Industrial Districts: the maximum lot area for CD is 1000 not 100 s.f. and the minimum setbacks from arterial and collector streets in IL and IG districts are reversed.

· Article 5.  Use Regulations, (n) Manufactured Housing Parks – Subsection (4) refers to “net” density but describes “gross” density. As in the existing regulations, this should be “gross” density.

·  Article 15. Nonconformities, section 1506 Registration of Nonconformities was designed to address non-conforming uses, not all non-conformities which would include sites where platted dimensions or setbacks are not in compliance with existing or new development code standards. In the current zoning code, non-complying structures were distinguished from non-conforming uses even though non-compliance is a type of non-conformity. The new code recognizes the industry standard for this situation. An editorial error made references in this section overly broad by applying registration to all non-conformities instead of just non-conforming uses which was the intent.

· Amend the zoning on annexation provisions.  The draft indicates that property will automatically receive an Urban Reserve zoning designation (20-108 (e)).  The only manner to rezone property is through the notice/hearing process before the Planning Commission, so this section needs to be amended to reflect that the zoning designation upon annexation is not automatic.