Meeting Information
The County Commission will meet at 4:00 p.m. for administrative items and at 6:35 p.m. for public interest items. Please see backup materials at the 4:00 p.m. meeting description.
Gaughan called the regular meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 5, 2012 with all Commissioners present.
MINUTES 12-05-12
Gaughan moved to approve the minutes for November 7 and November 15, 2012. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
CONSENT AGENDA 12-05-12
Gaughan moved approval of the following Consent Agenda item:
► Commission Order No.12-041(on file in the office of the Clerk);
Motion was seconded by Flory and carried 3-0.
PLANNING 12-05-12
The Board considered the approval of a Cross-Access Easement and Temporary Set Aside Agreement associated with CSU-12-00143 and a Certificate of Survey for a Cluster Development in the Urban Growth Area of Lawrence, for property generally located north of 977 E 100 Road. John E. Bowman and Ruth M. Bowman are property owners of record.
The Board also considered the approval of a Cross-Access Easement associated with CSU-12-00189 and a Certificate of Survey for a Cluster Development in the Urban Growth Area of Lawrence, for property generally located south of the intersection of N 1000 and E 1450 Roads. Benjamin W. Dennis and Stephanie L. Dennis are property owners of record. Mary Miller, Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Staff, presented both items.
Miller explained the differences between Temporary Set Aside Agreements; Cluster Certificate of Surveys and Cross Access Easements as follows;
The temporary Set Aside agreement restricts building on a portion of the property that includes environmentally sensitive lands, regulatory floodway fringe, stands of mature trees and stream corridors.
A cross-access easement is an easement that allows for the placement of the drive and explains the maintenance and construction responsibilities, like a private road.
A cluster certificate of survey is the type of certificate of survey you do in
the urban growth area. Only one access point is permitted for the road for each certificate of survey. All the residential development parcels share a common drive.
Miller used the example of the Bowman property cluster development as having 40% set-aside which reduces the amount of development at this time. She also explained a Temporary Set Aside Agreement expires two years after a property is annexed unless steps are taken to keep the agreement going.
Gaughan asked why Cluster developments have been slow taking off. Miller stated because the County is trying to get rid of piano key shaped lots. They required extra planning for street pattern layouts, basically more work.
Gaughan opened the item for public comment. No comment was received.
Flory moved to approve a Cross-Access Easement and Temporary Set Aside Agreement associated with CSU-12-00143, property owners John E. Bowman and Ruth M. Bowman. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
Flory moved to approve a Cross-Access Easement associated with CSU-12-00189 and a Certificate of Survey for a Cluster Development in the urban growth area for property located south of the intersection of N 1000 and E 1450 Roads, owners being Benjamin W. Dennis and Stephanie L. Dennis. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
PUBLIC WORKS 12-05-12
Keith Browning, Public Works Director, asked the Board to consider approving change orders totaling 9% of the construction contract amount for Project No. 2010-20, the reconstruction of Route 1055 (6th Street) from US-56 to Route 12.
The County Commission approved the above listed project on April 4, 2012 for a total contract amount of $2,550,999.99 to RD Johnson. A compilation of change orders had exceeded the approved 5% as authorized to the Public Works Director. Staff is predicting a possible overrun cost of 8.42% above the original contract amount, at project completion due to foundation and sub grade stabilization issues, additional riprap installation in a drainage channel, additional earthwork plus several other factors. The final amount will be 0-4% above what we have already approved and shared with Baldwin City.
Gaughan opened the item for public comment. No comment was received.
Flory moved to authorize the Public Works Director to approve change orders totaling 9% of the construction contract amount for Project No. 2010-20, the reconstruction of Route 1055 (6th Street) from US-56 to Route 12. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 12-05-12
The Board considered approving 2013 pay increases for employees. Sarah Plinsky, Assistant County Administrator, presented the item. Staff recommended a 1/% COLA, added to base pay where appropriate with the remaining 2% to be distributed on a merit basis to base pay or flat payment depending upon the department head. Plinsky provided a pay distribution matrix placing every employee by grade showing where employees fall in wage pay.
The Board discussed the option of a 1.5% split, meaning a 1.5% COLA with a 1.5% merit increase in place of the original proposal.
Gaughan opened the item for discussion with the department heads.
Pam Weigand, Director of Youth Services, commented that since the majority of her staff is entry level, she would like to see 50/50 split with merit. She d s see a lot of turnover and whatever can be done to improve base pay will help with recruitment.
Kay Pesnell, Register of Deeds, stated she likes the suggested 50/50 split also. She also has lost several employees and sees adding to the base pay as an incentive.
Plinsky added at the end of employee first year, they get a 5% increase. She felt giving a 1.5% merit d sn't provide much incentive for those striving to do more.
Teri Smith, Director of Emergency Management, agreed with the 50/50 option.
Paula Gilchrist, Douglas County Treasurer, said she was in favor of the 1% COLA with the 2% merit. She stated that d sn't mean everyone gets a 2% permit, some can still get more.
Keith Browning, Director of Public Works, stated COLA is not an increase at all. It's what the economy is doing. He felt a 1.5% merit d sn't reward the long-term employees.
The Board directed staff, as part of the work plan for 2013, to look into the cost of doing a classification and compensation study.
After discussion, Flory moved to approve 1) a 1.5% COLA increase and a 1.5% merit increase for Douglas County employees; and 2) with the COLA not applicable to the County Commissioners salaries. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 12-05-12
Gaughan moved to approve accounts payable in the amount of $2,073,570.65 to be paid on 12/06/12. Motion was seconded by Flory and carried 3-0.
RECESS 12-05-12
At 5:20 p.m., Gaughan moved for the Board to recess until 6:35 p.m. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
RECONVENE 12-05-12
The Board reconvened at 6:35 p.m.
PLANNING 12-05-12
The Board considered TA-8-11-11, a Text Amendment to the Douglas County Zoning Regulations for the Unincorporated Territory of Douglas County to establish Agritourism as a use in the County A (Agriculture) District. Mary Miller, Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Staff, presented the item.
The Board discussed the "assembly type uses" proposed: such as, fairs or festivals that are historical, cultural, or agriculturally related, weddings, receptions, etc. Points raised in the discussion included: adding a provision that exempted regular agricultural users from the requirement to obtain a site plan or Conditional Use Permit approval, advanced notice to neighbors of large planned events, limiting the number of large assembly uses to 100 or fewer and requiring County Commission review and approval or assembly uses for over 100 participants.
Rick Hird, Agritourism Committee, stated there were two things added to the agritourism text amendment after the Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation of it: 1) a review and approval process for the applications with both directors of Planning and Zoning and Codes, and if necessary through the County Commission; and 2) language for a Conditional Use Permit process to notify neighbors, and a hearing for assemblies over 150 people, or whatever number is set. Hird emphasized these additional considerations were not something the committee recommended. Hird said keeping track of numbers is hard to do and a gathering of 150 is a small number, especially for a wedding.
Linda Finger, Interim Zoning & Codes Director, stated the Zoning Department has no opinion on how many people the County should allow at an outside event. The Department's concern is with assemblies that are regulated under the building codes, which focus on interior space occupancy, not open air occupancy. They would like to see a number under 100 set for assembly uses in agricultural buildings. One-hundred people gathered in an agricultural building triggers additional building code requirements.
Flory stated he d s not feel we should make exceptions to our building codes when allowing assemblies in an agricultural building. We should state in the text amendment "structures for agritourism uses should comply with Douglas County building codes." Then, if we want to make exceptions for agritourism use, it should be done in the building code.
Gaughan asked staff to explain the wording "if occupies only the grade level of a structure that has at least one egress door that is a minimum of 32 inches wide." Miller stated the language was recommended by Kay Pettit of Zoning and Codes and would only be used until the building codes are revised. Hird explained that with a Morton building, the Building Codes do not count the oversized utility door as an egress door. He felt that should be addressed and accepted. Flory agreed, but said it should be addressed in the Building Codes rather the agritourism provisions.
There was further discussion on having one set of rules for weddings under commercial use and a different set for weddings under agritourism use. Flory stated if money is changing hands for the use of a structure for a wedding facility, he felt then there must be County approval.
Pep Selvan, 1969 N 1250 Road, stated the building code is a very broad and general reference and is subject to interpretation. There needs to be a definition of agritourism. He felt we depend upon the building department's interpretation on square footage, water fixtures, etc., which is too strict for the agritourism use. He asked the Board to give the building department an opportunity to provide some flexibility.
Flory responded if we want to make exceptions in occupancy for agritourism it should be put in the building code, not the agritourism language. Selvan agreed. However, he has never heard of anyone being hurt at an agritourism gathering.
Thellman felt this is a different type of activity encouraged by the State and there should be extra considerations given on using older buildings and encouraging rural accommodations, rather than imposing typical urban rules and regulations.
Flory stated the State's encouragement means nothing to him. It's a statistic. It is not regulated or checked by the State. The State is not worried about neighbors or traffic. We have to monitor that locally. Everything set out in agritourism seems to work except the assembly uses. Flory said he wanted to be fair to the non-agritourism users, like those offering large gatherings and weddings. If you have large wedding gatherings frequently on a gravel road, you will impact the neighbors. Flory said the Board is carving out an exception to what zoning exists and what lifestyle exists and we have to make them compatible.
Kay Pettit, Zoning and Codes, said the building codes allow an applicant to select the desired occupancy rate, as long as it d sn't exceed the maximum number listed in the building codes.
Flory said his concern is with gatherings of more than 100 people, not with events like wine tasting, a corn maze, a farm exhibit or farm tour; but a single incident. He felt a Conditional Use Permit should be applied for if the property owner anticipates more than 100 attendees. The application process is a one-time process only. Flory stated he would like to see the following conditions added to the text amendment: the expected number of events per year, notifications to residents on unpaved roads up to the nearest paved road; and the applicants' intent to comply with building codes.
Thellman commented she felt the extended notification would discourage property owners from applying for agritourism. Notifying two miles from the venue opens up opportunities for people to complain about the event. She felt with what is being discussed, what was meant to be an encouragement of agritourism turns into something that she d sn't feel is an encouragement. The Commission should find ways to simplify the requirements.
Gaughan said if he were to make a suggestion it would be to send the wording back to the planning committee with direction to add Commissioners Flory's and Thellman's comments to what the committee had worked out. Flory stated he d sn't want to send it back if he d sn't have to. Thellman suggested the Board consider 150 as the number of attendees to be allowed at an agritourism function.
Gaughan opened the item for public comment.
Natalya Lowther, Pinwheel Farm, said she has a nontraditional building she uses like a barn for sheep shearing, which she considers an agritourism event. Her concern is that she would have to forfeit her agritourism events if the County imposes a limit on how many can attend a function under the Building Code regulations.
Tamara Hagerman, 1893 N 800 Road, said she is a board member for the Vinland Fair and wanted to confirm the new agritourism regulations will not have an effect on the Vinland Fair. Flory responded not unless she registers the event under agritourism.
Steve Miles, Douglas County Appraiser, stated if a building is currently an agriculture use building, its valuation is agricultural. If the structure is used as a wedding reception hall, it valuation (as a commercial use) would be the same. Both buildings would be assessed at 25%. If the building is improved, as many reception halls are, the improvements would increase the valuation.
Discussion continued on the larger events that could take place under the category of festival, event or gatherings. Flory had concerns that someone would use the agritourism designation as a cover for holding a large rock concert. He felt requiring a Special Event Permit would provide oversight for those types of activities. The Special Event Permit would provide information on parking, lighting, sanitation etc. Thellman stated the Special Event Permit isn't meant to stop large events, but adds one more step before a large event can occur.
Hird stated the first issue is that of the 100 person limit, which would trigger a Special Use Permit. The second issue is the building codes. He asked if the limit would apply to gatherings indoors and out. He felt if a wedding is held outdoors, the gathering limit shouldn't matter.
Thellman and Gaughan both agreed to accept a 150 person limit. Flory stated he firmly wanted the gathering number limited to 100 persons, anything above that would constitute the need for a Special Event Permit.
To prevent a stalemate over the assembly provision, the Board reached a consensus to accept the gathering limit of 100 persons per event, anything over 100 people would require the property owner to apply for a Special Event Permit.
Flory agreed to provide his recommended language changes to planning staff for revisions to the text amendment.
Thellman asked staff how people will be notified of the agritourism opportunity, how to take the first step, and what the perks are. Miller stated she plans on preparing a brochure, placing the information on the County website, doing a press release, and by word-of-mouth. The people that are registered can be listed on the website with information about their events, with hyperlinks to the individual agritourism operators' webpages.
Thellman asked about those already are receiving money for wedding, but do not have CUPs. Miller stated they will need to register with the State as an agritourism use, as they are not compliant with the County Code.
It was the consensus of the Board to defer final action on item TA-8-11-11 to December, for further consideration when revisions are presented.
RECESS 12-05-12
At 8:52 p.m., the Board took a 5 minutes break, to return at 8:57 pm.
RECONVENE 12-05-12
The Board returned to session at 8:57 p.m.
PLANNING 12-05-12
The Board considered TA-8-10-11, a Text Amendment to the Douglas County Zoning Regulations for the Unincorporated Territory of Douglas County to establish a Special Event Permit, an application process and standards. Mary Miller, Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Staff, presented the item.
Miller stated a Special Event Permit is a way to address events when people sporadically want to have events, but do not want to go through the full CUP process or do not qualify as an agritourism use. Exemptions include private gatherings, garage/estate sales or similar events two per year, or non-profit or fundraising events which meet set criteria and lasts no more than 14 days. Up to four events are allowed per year at one location. The noise ordinance must be observed. The event cannot interfere with access into the site for emergency vehicles and cannot occur within the regulatory floodplain.
Planning Commission had voted 9-0 to forward to the County Commission a recommendation for approval with a few additional revisions to Article 12-319 of the Zoning Regulations.
Flory questioned if faith-based assemblies are exempt for having a fundraiser. Miller stated if a church has an event on their own property they do not need a permit. If they have an event on another property, they are not exempt. A fund-raising event on the sponsor's privately-owned property is exempt. If it d sn't meet the standards, then it would require a permit.
The Board suggested that the Zoning and Codes Department be responsible for sending out notification, extending to the nearest blacktop road, to surrounding property owners. The application submittal date must be 28 days prior to the event.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that staff revise the language for the Special Event Permit and place it on the December 12, 2012 agenda for consideration.
Flory moved to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0
____________________________ ____________________________
Mike Gaughan, Chair Nancy Thellman, Vice-Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Jamie Shew, County Clerk Jim Flory, Member
Time and Date