Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/1997

Home

.. MAY 1997 IY/H AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION iii Vacating and Replatting Platted Lands By Jim Schwab, AICP Last month's issue of Zoning News introduced the problem of antiquated subdivisions, defined as ptematurely subdivided lands whose lot sizes or potential development no longer meet current zoning or subdivision standards in their jurisdiction. That issue also addressed remedies for these problems that fall short of the surgical techniques of either condemning the land, vacating such plats, or redrawing lot lines through mergers or replatting. In this issue, we turn our attention to those situations that may call for such approaches. As with all planning solutions for antiquated subdivisions, choosing the right solution is a matter of closely analyzing the problems a particular subdivision presents and fashioning a customized response within the limits of applicable state and local land-use authorities. Defining Obiectives Without clarity of purpose, it is hard to achieve quality development. It can be argued that most antiquated subdivisions resulted from a lack of clarity concerning both the type and timing of development that was desired for an area when the subdivision was approved. Even where the intent seemed clear but the developer simply failed to follow through on its plans, leaving the land vacant for years thereafter, local officials may have failed to clarifY the builder's ability to make good on his intentions. Either way, the result is that local planners may have to return to the drawing board to decide how they wish to go about bringing the antiquated subdivision up to current standards and expectations. Although the stakes for the community may be modest with a small subdivision, they rise with size. In 1988, Colorado u ..: ~ u .~ '" o '0 ::e <: -B 3 '" Q) Springs Mayor Bob Isaac opposed the simultaneous annexation and zoning of more than 23,000 acres when Aries Properties bought the Banning-Lewis Ranch, east of the city, from Mobil Land Development Company for $92 million (see "Planning News," Planning, November 1988). With some conditions, the city nonetheless approved the deal. Unfortunately, Aries became a casualty of the savings and loan crisis, and the distressed property was resold in 1993 for just $18 million. Was this situation an aberration? Hardly. According to a paper by Denver lawyer Donald L. Elliott (see box), a 1986 survey by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy found that between 20,000 and 100,000 lots in Colorado could be classified as obsolete. Basically, communities set standards in three primary areas- quality, density, or appropriateness-when seeking to ameliorate the development problems posed by antiquated subdivisions. Specific objectives in these areas depend mostly on context: In what ways does the subdivision in question fall short of meeting the community's standards? A few examples in each categoty will highlight the challenges involved in fashioning an appropriate solution. Development quality is often, but not always, tied to environmental concerns. Many antiquated subdivisions were platted with inadequate attention to environmental constraints, the nature of which depend on the area in question but can include water supply, the steepness of the terrain, slope stability, soil quality (particularly if septic tanks are anticipated), the presence of wetlands or floodplains, and natural hazards such as earthquake faults or susceptibility to wildfires. In addition, planned development and lot sizes may degrade the aesthetic quality of an area, including views of mountains and seashores. In many of these cases, performance zoning, the use of overlay districts with special standards to achieve more sensitive development, and similar devices such as incentives may induce lot owners or the developer to propose means of mitigation before seeking permits. Allowing added housing size or A platted but largely unbuilt subdivision in southwestern Florida in 1977. 115