Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-01-24 Agenda , ' I , \".,' I' -fl" ..... .......-....... ~. ~...... ~ - -- ~ --- ........ "'tIIIIII . .., ~ , '....... . .'" . . I .' .":i; I> :. ,LI" .' t-' "" .1,-' .' .' '.. '... .' . . I . " . , ,. . .' : '" ~ .' I ~- -. \ ITEM NO.1. ITEM NO.2. / I ;> " ., .'t.' '~-" "'~'-- -, AGENDA IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING. JANUARY 24, 1994 6:30 P.M. PUBLIC LIDRARY . MEETING ROOM A CALL TO ORDER. ROLL CALL. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FRINGE AREA POLICY AGREEMENT BETWEEN JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA AND IOWA CITY, IOWA. II I Comment: Over the past year, a subcommittee of two representatives of ! the Johnson County Zoning Commission and two representatives of the ii . il Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, have been meeting and I' 1\: ,I " working together to develop a revised agreement that would more 1" , Ij effectively direct and control development in Iowa City's extraterritorial " ,': - area. A joint public hearing on the proposed agreement was held by the /1 . 1 " Iowa City Planning and Zonning Commission and the Johnson County , t 1 ; ~ Zoning Commission on July 22, 1993. At its August 9, 1993, public i r! hearing on this agreement, the County Zoning Commission unanimously ! I, I , ' ,'I recommended approval of the proposed Fringe Area Agreement. The Iowa 'I' i I City Planning and Zoning Commission also unanimously recommended .' approval of this document following its public hearing on August 19, : I 1993. b~ ' .." " i Action: I: :/ ITEM NO.3. ,.~~,.,..."_.."_...,,,_,,,~_.. ._,u ,-.',--. '. '. c"., ADJOURN. ii " i 1'. .JIMjl..' ":'.........~".. ...... -........-"'1 ~. -~....... ~ .~I...... - ~ ...... .........---------.,f".... -......Pl-. ....~_. I~....;- \ __ T . . , , , . ' ' . 'I" 1:/, t-" I '. .' . . Ift;.;.". I. " . ' '" .' '. .'. ,:,' 7Jj .: . ' . ,.' , . :' ". ~' ,,'. _ ~ l . . ,/ :- '1 J Joint meeting page 1 Joint Urban Fringe Meeting city/County 6:30 PM, Iowa city Public Library, Meeting Room A. Iowa city council: Horow, Pigott, Throg, Kubby, Baker, Lehman, Nov. Iowa City staff: Atkins, Karr, Borman, Moen Johnson county Board of Supervisors: Lacina, Bolkcom, Meade, Duffy. , , , Johnson County Staff: Tapes: 94-22, all; 94-23, all. Joint Urban Fringe Hearing 94-22 Sl Lacina/First I will give introductions of everyone. Then I will read a brief statement which gives an overview of the proposal. We will go to staff for background. We will then hear from the Board and Council if you have any questions of staff. Then we will go to the p.h. and have input from the public. Again we will come back to Boards for final questions or statements and then if there is any direction that we wish to give to the study committee to proceed. The Mayor and I have sort of a protocol. We alternate on meetings and I guess I am lucky this evening, I get to run the meeting so Sue will help keep me on task here. First on introductions I think the way we will do this is split this. The mayor can introduce the city council. I will introduce the board of supervisors. And Sue, if you would like to go first. Horow/ On my left is Karen Kubby and Jim Throgmorton, Bruno pigott will be here and he will be sitting here. On my right: Naomi Novick, Mayor Pro-tern, Ernie Lehman, second to the end, and Larry Baker on the end. Lacina/ Thank you. From the Board of Supervisors will have Charlie Duffy, myself Steve Lacina, we have Pat Meade and Joe Bolkcom. Also in the audience we have a number of individuals that should be recognized. The Joint committee consisted of Bill Terry, Bob Sanders, who will be here later. From Iowa City Dick Gibson and Tom Scott. From staffs we have Monica Moen from the city, Rick Devorak, our zoning Assistance. From the county we have Graham Dameron from the Health Department, John Shaw our planner, Ann Leahy from the County Attorney's office. Taking minutes is John Dieth from the Auditor's Office, and I saw Steve Atkins earlier from the city. Horow/ We also have Marsha Borman, our Assistant City Attorney and Marian Karr, our City Clerk, as well as Steve. " ~ Ii 1\ " 'I I[ r II " Ii Ii .~ . li - :, ' I': Iii " I f; i i ~ I I,i i I 1 I Ii .: I ~ i. ' I. I ! J I .. , I , !, . " F012494 i' :1 , .; , I " , ': ..__.M.....,_,."..... " .'. -~ ":':.~ ""ff"'" - , , I I , --'---"1 ~- """W\...".. ~ -;' ...... ------ -- " '. ":/ /' . L/' t-,~ ;;-t' i, ' , " ,', -, . , :':~', .: M :, . ~_. 'I "M ,', '. .,' ~ . Joint meeting page 2 I I , ! I, ~ ~ ~ ~ , ., J " ,~ ~ r, I I' ,I " I I Lacina/ I see Ann Bovbjerg standing in the back from city P/Z. Is there anyone that we missed that wished to be recognized. Kot Flora and Hilliary Maur from Johnson County Health Department. And quite a few people from the public. Welcome this evening on a rather nasty night. Now, a brief statement concerning the fringe area (Reads statement) And this is a modification because there does exist a Fringe Area Agreement. So this is a modification to the plan. With us we have Bruno Pigott from the City Council as well. okay, at this time I will turn the presentation over to staff and Monica, if you would like to proceed. Monica Moen/ Thank you. Iowa city and Johnson county have had a Fringe Area Agreement since 1983. The state law gives cities that have taken the power to subdivide land within it's corporate boundaries the ability, if it so desires, to regulate the subdivision of land outside its immediate corporate limits. That is what we call the extraterritorial jurisdiction or we sometimes refer to it as the fringe area. The state gives cities the authority, if it elects to do so by ordinance, the ability to review subdivision of land within two miles of its corporate limits and Iowa city has elected to review subdivision of land within two miles of its corporate boundaries. cities aren't obliged to go out to two miles but Iowa city has elected to do so. with any plat, therefore, that is being proposed within this two mile area, Iowa City has the right to review and approve or deny that plat. And the county doesn't have the privilege to approve that plat unless the city of Iowa city has done so. Now since the County has regulations that govern zoning of land within the county the right to zone land is left with the county. The city only has the ability to review and recommend approval or denial of any rezoning requests. But the county board of supervisors can act independently of that. As I indicated, in 1983 the city and the county mutually agreed to a set of policies that governs and directs how land within Iowa city's two mile area is suppose to occur. That is what we refer to as our Fringe Agreement. That was adopted in December 1983 and it is effective until the first part of the year 2005. It is good for a 21 year period. In the absence of this fringe agreement the city would have the ability to apply the same standards to any development outside of the corporate limits in the Fringe Area that it applies to development within the corporate limits. But as I have already indicated we presently have a Fringe Agreement that affects and regulates or suggests how development is to occur. I am just going to acquaint you briefly with the existing Fringe Agreement and I will explain why we are getting into the proposal to amend this agreement and then I will get into the description and F012494 --. ... ~ ; , , ! i 'I' , 1; I Ii' ~ ( " I' l'i I) ir " " ./: - 1\ I:; r ~ '. II I.! , I I," '1:[ I I I .I " I II' ! , ,. ~ : , " I, I I. I 1 i j i 1 ,- , . ,:/ " , I , " ~". ....... ""-'--""'lIII1 ~ ~ - ~ ~..........--------- ~-- ~ ,-'..... '.... . '.. . '. "', ' 'I' : L/. , 't-' '/Z!' " ' ",' ' ' " , , ~ .' ~, ' :/ '.~' ~.' '~.' . . ]]. . , .' " ,'. 1 Joint meeting page 3 I , { J I, .' I i: ti }. 1 i~ I , , the process of how that particular proposal was formulated. Iowa city's fringe area is broken into eight different sub areas, numbers 1-8. Within areas 2, 3, & 4 and actually only the eastern part of area 4 is residential development permitted or encouraged. In the balance of the fringe area we predominantly have agricultural uses that are encouraged to continue. Non-farm development is generally limited or restricted to zoning that existed at the time the Fringe Agreement was adopted. So, if someone would come in wish to rezone land contrary to this Fringe Agreement it would be the city's inclination to recommend against the particular rezoning because it is inconsistent with the Fringe Agreement. Within fringe area 5 and within fringe area 6 back in 1983 we expected that the city was going to at some point annex this land. As a consequence the existing Fringe Agreement says that within one mile east of Iowa City and one mile south of Iowa city that city-urban design standards are to apply to any subdivision of land in the that area. In other words, the same standards that we apply to any development in Iowa city would also apply to any development just outside the corporate limits of Iowa city in 5 & 6. As I said, in the balance of the-there are some exceptions but mainly in the balance of the fringe area we were recommending in 1983 that agricultural uses be preferred. There are some exceptions in fringe area 8 where there is a recognition of the desirability of some commercial and industrial development. Now both the city and the county, as jurisdictions, have experienced some frustration with the existing Fringe POlicy. We both have taken liberties I think to interpret the Fringe Agreement as we both felt benefitted our individual jurisdiction and some times that particular interpretation ran counter to what the other jurisdiction thought the Fringe Agreement meant. As the consequence we have been brought to the table several times to amend the agreement. Three times to be exact. But we have continued to be frustrated by some of the language in the Fringe Agreement. So both the city council and the board of supervisors determined that it was appropriate for members of the two P/z Commissions from the city and the county to get together and to try to devise a Fringe Agreement that more effectively regulated land in the extraterritorial area. Since 1982 the subcommittee that Steve referred to has been working on devising such a document and it has been a real challenge for this group because each member came with his own biases regarding what would be appropriate development from city perspective and from a county perspective. And the challenge was to attempt to devise an agreement that compromised some of the these positions yet didn't undermine the basic goals and objectives of each jurisdiction. I am going to turn this portion of the meeting over to Rick Devorak and him explain how the county evaluates the ability of land F012494 ~ Ii 1\ I! ,) Ii ii' p' 'q . I~ r ~ .' I,; " " I I II II' " " I: ~ I Ii [, ,. I' ~, t: ~\ " ',\ i~ " , ~: " ,: r i , , G ! I \ :_LL..l1lW - - 1" ~ " ~". - ! I ~ ~ ! ~ " I I ! ~ I' 'I I. ~ f lj " " ft ~ ~~ I' \I " ?, I I i - "11'1 - ... . ( " .'" ( '.-, "I' "" t-" 'I""'t ' .', ",..' (fC. "'- ,,' . 1" ' ,,' I . . ; . ,", M" ''', '~-' ~l'" , . " " / "1 , ',~ ' Joint meeting page 4 outside of a corporate limit and whether or not that land is capable of developing for purposes of other than agricultural. Following that I will describe the city's analysis and then I will get into description of the proposed amendments to the agreement. Rick Devorak/First thing we use in the county is the soil maps to interpret the quality of soils for housing, development for septic tanks and so on. So therefore I was charged with the responsibility of doing all 104 sections around Iowa city. I got a few examples of what we do on a normal basis. It shows one section at random which gives you an idea of the things that we look at. This photo here is of the CSR, the corn suitability rating, of a section of land, 640 acres. As you can see I set the parameters from 64 to 100 which is on the top and of that 65 and better is what we consider prime farm land in the county. Of this section 572 acres is prime farm land. So our parameters is not an ideal section per se to look at for development purposes. Next is hydric soils which I am sure you are all familiar with. This map indicates the areas that we look at for hydric soils and again, using a parameters that we use from the soil conservation service: #1 where the dark shaded areas are what they consider hydric soils and possibly a wetlands area. #2 is a maybe and that would be one that we would have the SCS go to the site and identify specifically at the site to see if it was a wetlands area. #3 by the SCS's definition is not a hydric soil so therefore we could probably develop that land. The next is a high water table which is very important to us since we rely mostly on conventional septic tanks and drain fields. Again, in this section I used a parameter of one to six feet which normal septic drain fields are at a depth of three feet. Thirty inches to three feet. So, therefore, as you can see in this one, again, 258 acres of the 640 are marginal for conventional systems. They can be built on but not with conventional systems. So this would leave us to believe that this is not a good area also for development. The last one is more of your flood plain definitions. The areas that are indicated in yellow are the areas that we would consider a flood plain and as we found out last year they are pretty true. We did a reevaluation of some of these last fall and it did come out to be fairly accurate. This particular area there are some that are marginal flood plain, not totally identified as a flood plain area. So in this one section. Then we take each section and we weight it and it is not a perfect way of doing it. We agree with that but for study purposes it is all we could do with 104 sections to work with. It is very difficult to see from this fly or whatever you want to call it but the 275 which is the darker areas are the areas that we felt would meet more of our criteria for development F012494 , \ , Ii I Ii ,I " i! 'I i! I' ii' I' " Ii , Ii , , I;' I I' .'.' I 1'1 t;) , , I , , I I , II' . 11 , i! Ii, ,\ ""If'I" " 1 '. ,'~ , " ...... --...--- --.;, ---...- ~-- ~ ..-, ......... -- - -- -"'QPIJ. .... - . , . . , . " . '. , ' '-t'" , , I' " . '" :"1.. :~I,','"l ~',' ',". ,.,'.,..~. : t. '. / " , >' Joint meeting page 5 I' t purposes. The red or the gray at the bottom are the least desirable for to meet our criteria again. So from this, as you can see, we felt as though the 250 to 275 would be more inclined to meet our criteria or using our comprehensive plan for development which is in the area A or 4 as it were and also to the west of Iowa city. For that reason the study committee then came back with a scenario that they would like to see more development on a rural basis in that area without having to meet the urban criteria that we have been using in the fringe area now. Monica will address that a little bit more in detail. In going back to the original I then contacted the County Engineer's Office and what parameters he would like to see used for development and obviously he would like to see it on all state highways but that isn't realistic. Second choice were the seal coated roads or hard surfaced roads and those areas that we still have pressure for development it is his opinion that we look at formulated some from of impact fees or establishing a special assessment districts which we have talked to the county attorney's office which can be done. We have not investigated much further because we wanted to see what these boards would like to do first. But it is a very good possibility. Currently we are doing this now on rural developments on gravel roads. For example, we are requiring that the developer pay for the cost of dust alleviation on this road. So it is something that we can do. We know we can do. The last was we contacted the Health Department because of the consolidation of houses in small areas we asked for their input and in summation of what they recommended was that each well have a well forecast done in this area to see what the impact this well would have on adjoining developments to see if then maybe they would have to go a different aquifer and seal it off so that it wouldn't impact the smaller developments around or other developments in that same area so as to not to lower their water table per se or aquifer. The other area that they were most interested in is requesting that all developments basically of any size, I think three lots or larger, four lots or larger, become members of the wastewater management district which also does help protect the environment or protect the water supplies, surface and above ground or below ground. I believe at this point I will turn it back to Monica. Moen/ I would like to go back to this transparency a moment. As Rick described from the county's perspective and from the characteristics that the county utilizes in order to evaluate the developability of a parcel of ground, it appears as though an area north of Iowa City and to the west of Iowa city is more suitable for development than land east and south. Now Iowa City looked at the developability of land from another perspective and that's the ability of the city to provide F012494 , ~: ,;; r t I, t ! I I H I 1 ! I I I '. -. -- n_ ! I I! I I' " ,i: 'I ," i: 'j' I, I 1 1 I"~ i , I f: ,-; I,j I' II 1 ;/ i I ,. I: II I: I! I' I I '. i ; , I, " -.,.,.. "IIl""". i " .......~.....,~ -~-- QII; ..-, ........ -- ~. ......---------- V Ill' --..--.......-. ...-.........--,~ -.-----~ ""...... 1 I II . " '" :t '/' Lf "":i.!,":' "" , .. ", . . , . V 1,.. '- : . ',. H' ','.'- ,'..'. \ .. " . / " ,', -- Joint meeting page 6 Ii ~ {i "' li ;' Ii P , ~ jt I I I I municipal sanitary sewer service which is a very important piece of infrastructure for development and our ability to do so from the perspective of a gravity flow system. The dark area outside the corporate limits of Iowa city illustrates land that physically or topographically flows in a direction that could be served by our sewage treatment system. This is land that falls toward the sewage treatment plants by means of gravity flow. This is the most efficient way for a municipality to provide sanitary sewer service and given the cost of that type of infrastructure Iowa city evaluated the developability of land from that perspective. That is the ability to provide this service should that land be annexed into Iowa city. So you can see from the very beginning the subcommittee had a challenge facing it. The county said we think we need to expand to the north and to the west and Iowa city representatives say no we want to go east and south. So the challenge facing the subcommittee was to come up with a proposal that combined the interests of both groups without undermining the actual efforts to control or regulate development in the fringe area. This particular policy by the way, as Steve indicated earlier in the meeting, received the unanimous endorsement of the fringe committee and also the Iowa city P/Z Commission and the Johnson County P/Z Commission. Earlier I illustrated a transparency that showed you eight fringe areas. The new policy suggests that the fringe areas be aggregated into three areas identified as fringe areas A, B, and C. And these three areas are distinct from one another with respect to developability and annexation potential. I indicated to you earlier that in fringe areas 2 & 3 and in 4 which east of Highway #1 a certain amount of residential development is presently permitted on a case by case basis in the existing Fringe Agreement. Kubby/ Will you say that again, Monica. Moen/ In areas 2, 3, & 4, and the portion of 4 east of Highway #1 limited amount of residential development is permitted. It is actually encouraged in 2 & 3 and to a limited extent it is permitted east of Highway 1 in fringe area 4. Based on the county's criteria this area has a high development potential. But for the city'S perspective it is not expected to be annexed in the long term. We feel, however, it may be appropriate to consider a limited amount of residential development under certain conditions. And that is on a case by case basis we would review proposals for rezoning provided the rezoning met the county's criteria for development. Then rezoning could occur to the extent of an RS-3 density which means one dwelling unit per three acres. However we recommend in the fringe agreement that development be clustered so that the lots are no larger than an acre in size, that you have a I I , it I ij :j ~ ( n f! ,I ,I i I F012494 r I l \ t I , r f , , ! I i I: f !: ~ I I: Ii , :: " I:: " , " 1,1 Ii I: ;1 . ;) t; I" " I J , ; " ' i . J~ I ! " \.,,;1 . 'f. I L , 1 1 I :i :i " ) I i " I j ~ ~ ~ " -I ,'1 ,\ I: , I , ~ i1 \ " , \ j I I i I ! IJ ).; ~: l ", ;1 ;, ~ ! ~ I 1 I I 1 r.....,"_.".._..... . , ' , " , I "I "I" ,3'" '; , :,'" , \ " ':1 Il,.;. ,/ . I' ',' , . , . . . I ,~ . ~ ,....... . , " , , " , "--. , Joint meeting page 7 sizable area that is left as open space. The reason that we have made this particular recommendation is that we would be getting a development pattern that is more urban like than if it were developed at a rural density of one dwelling unit per three acres. We feel that Clustering then, should this area be annexed into the community, would give the city a residential development pattern that would resemble what we have in the city. Fringe area B to the east and to the south is an area that I have indicated has high annexation potential with respect to the city and I am referring to an approximate 20 year time frame. The illustration that showed you that dark area of land that could be potentially be physically annexed into the community illustrates a planning time frame of approximately 20 years. So east of Iowa city and south Iowa City we see this land because of its topography having a high annexation potential. Because of that it is not in the city's interests to have development occur in those areas in a rural fashion. That means that if that land were annexed into the community we would be acquiring subdivisions that are not designed consistently with what we have in the city. So, we are suggesting here that this land within one mile east of Iowa City and within up to two miles south of Iowa City be actually be downzoned from its predominantly residential designation now to the ag designation or A-1. As that land is annexed into the community then it would be given the appropriate residential designation and that land could proceed developing at the urban development patterns. So the developer would realize the benefit of higher densities of development than would be permitted under the county regulations. Beyond the one and two mile areas out side of this hatched area we see agricultural development continuing. That is the preferred Use out there. That would be consistent, too, with the county's development standards. We have made some concessions in the fringe agreement that would allow on a very limited basis within this marginal area some residential development beyond the two houses presently permitted in an agriculturally zoned tract of land. But the requirement is is that you have at least 40 acres of land and you would be permitted one additional house beyond the two you are already allowed under the Ag designation. Fringe area C is a more complex area in that we have got several things going on here. We have got an area that we feel may be annexed into the community for industrial and Commercial purposes and as a consequence any non commercially zoned land in this area we would prefer to see down zoned until that land is annexed into the community. We would not like to see any commercial or industrial development here until the land is annexed and can develop according to the city design standards. We have some land that is within our growth area that we suggest could proceed with development but it should F012494 \ I I I I hot , I I I , , ! ? , ; : i ! " I )1: I:' 'I ~ ,I r I: , 'I i , \ Ii i' !I I.' 'I' ij' !; II 'i :1 I J I I II " " I: il .,.........~". " , , ' , .. -,.... -- ~ ----... ~- ~ fIt-' ...1" -- ~. -....---~---"""If'" - -"....- -- -. ..~-.'......".--' - ....-_~-- \ , " .. I .' . , .'_ .'. , 1 , I ,!- 'I l' 'ij" .,' , , , , . :/ .~' / ",,: ," , ~ '. ',; 'M .,'.:,,"' . " ". '. -~~. ", : . ' , ' ,. .' , 1 '" Joint meeting page 8 , , occur in a clustered fashion and then we have land outside of the growth area that should be allowed to continue to develop. And lastly, we have got land that is zoned for agricultural purposes that would be permitted that one additional house beyond what is permitted right now provided the tract is at least 40 acres in area and meets the development standard. Now, an additional item within this Fringe Agreement proposal that is not included in the existing agreement is that, as I indicated earlier, Iowa city's fringe area is defined as two miles from its corporate limits. What that presently means now is anytime we annex land that fringe area is automatically extended the distance that we annexed. Let me just illustrate that for you. I think you are all familiar with the Windsor Ridge development located formerly just east of the Iowa city corporate limits. Before this annexation occurred the limit for fringe area 5 was this orange dashed line. As a consequence of the annexation of this 240 acre tract our fringe area automatically extended this distance. So we captured this area within our fringe area and that area now is subject to the recommendations made within the fringe agreement. The proposal suggests that the city would consider rescinding the automatic nature of the extension of would consult with the county board of supervisors before the decision was made whether or no to extend the fringe area following annexation of land. The administrative and design components of the Fringe Agreement remain the same as they did as exists in the existing agreement. The agreement, however, is distinguished by the fact that w~ include a land use map which would be adopted as a component of the fringe agreement. In conclusion I just want to reiterate that significant amount of work that has been done on the part of the fringe subcommittee and the members of the two P/Z commissions and I hope with this discussion you can appreciate the extent of thought and work that was put in by the members of those three bodies. Thank you. Lacina/ At this time if there are any comments that wish to be made by the joint committee I think that would be appropriate. I think that we have someone that has requested an opportunity to speak. Is Tom here this evening. Dick or Bill, anyone else wish to make any comments at this time. Bill Terry/ Johnson County P/Z. And we have worked very hard for over a year and a half on this fringe area redesign and I guess that ideally that we all would like to say that everything and everybody's concerns will be met. But we also had to be pragmatic enough to understand that there were going to have to be compromises and after all compromise is the name of the game. What we have right now is not real workable and we have to come up with something that is more workable and is ; i I I I I I I I I I" , , , ! ! I I / ; . t; \; ~ I 1 ~ i I ! ! , I t r l " ~; l , , , II " , , i ;) F012494 I;, ,.' ...LI LI L - I; : , I:, II II' " I' ii " ',' " 'I, j' I" " I ~ ,\ ii I: , , [ " I I I' " I I .. , I I I , I r .1 '! 'lfIIIf"". - ~ t .' , i I ~ ! II ~ ~ 1 ! " I ~ I - 'l----...~..... ~ -, - 1IiI!. ...." .... ....- - --- !'., ,,; I' . ",L/"'" '''"" ",'Li" " ,- .:.. " " :' . -:I'~' ,I." '\ ,'~, I ,,-,~t ' , ' " ". ' , l i' ,- "--- Joint meeting page 9 fair both to the county and to the city. But probably more importantly, to the subdividers and the property owners out there. In the past we have been in a situation where county vs. city and city VB. county. As you go through this p.h. tonight I would ask you not to look at it that way. Not to say what is the city getting and what is the county getting. But more importantly what is the community of Iowa city and surrounding area getting because that's what is important. We are looking at future development of this area probably for the next 20 years and we are hoping that it will be orderly and to the likes and benefits of all parties concerned. And so I ask you to keep that in mind as you make your comments tonight and I am hoping that we come back to the subcommittee with some very pertinent and germane issues that maybe we can work on and compromise on to come up with a very workable fringe area. I know there is room to work it out. And I guess finally I would like to say that I am extremely pleased to see this many people come out tonight for a p.h. We had one p.h. hearing where I think we had seven people. I am extremely gratified. On behalf to he subcommittee I would like to thank you. This is democracy in action and I am happy to see it. Thanks much. ,- , I : ' , f ~, ' " ~ , I I I , , I I I I I I. 11' (: r '! I I' i~ , . l ' d I, " i:: I i I; il Ii " II ;1 " ,- i :i I 1:1 j I i I I I ., I Ii I I , j i .1 .. " Lacina/ Tom, did you wish to make a statement before us also. Tom Scotti I appear before you tonight as chair of the Iowa city P/Z commission as well as a member of the fringe area subcommittee that worked on the particular proposal that you have in front of you tonight. I would like to make a couple of comments on some of the discussion that occurred at the last public meeting maybe to at least let you know from where the commission operated in some of the recommendations that we made. The first one deals with the downzoning east of Iowa city and there was considerable time spent on the question of downzoning at the county meeting that was held a couple of weeks ago. There seemed to be some confusion as to the tax status of land that is presently zoned residential but that is being utilized as farm ground. I spoke with the county assessor and he assures me that what I had in my mind and what the committee operated from and what we had been told was correct and that is that ground that is zoned -excuse me. The zoning does not play a role in the assessment or the taxable assessment for the county. If in fact the lands are zoned residential east of Iowa city that had been recommended to be down zoned to A-1, if they are presently being utilized as farm ground they are taxed as farm ground. He also told me that if someone subdivides and develops their property and readies it for development-excuse me, subdivides and plats the property that they do not tax the property for three years at the residential or the platted market value. And he said even F012494 ,I .,. _h ~~.......".. ........-.--.~-~-:, -~....~ ,-'....."'- "."~/- LI" """" 'c.:,':;, '.'. ,.,,:,",',' ",' ,.:,,' ",' _ . 'J::.' .'~" .~~. ,: . I ,,' . ..' ;' " .~, . Joint meeting page 10 I , t i " " , ;' ( ~ r !; t i. , \' ,- r II \ I. r, [ ! I that some development has occurred slowly that some of the unbuilt lots are still not taxed at the full market value. But what I am trying to say is that the assessed valuation of property that is presently utilized as agriculture will not be impacted if in fact the proposal, as the subcommittee recommends, the proposal to down zone east of Iowa city occurs. The other revolved around the fear of significant numbers of law suits being filed against the county if in fact you all downzoned. I am certainly not an attorney and I am not going to make a lot of comments on this particular subject but I will urge both the political jurisdictions here tonight, namely the Board of Supervisors and the city Council, to consult with their legal counsels, namely the city Attorney and the County Attorney, on that particular question. I think that it would be fair to day that anytime you rezone property you are certainly open to law suit. I would agree with that. The issue of the compromises that occurred, I would tell you that part of the reason for the revisions to the fringe area agreement is that the present one truly is not working and I know that both appointed bodies, namely the County P/Z Commission and the Iowa city P/Z Commission, and I think both the political bodies have to be somewhat frustrated by what appears at times to be both jurisdictions going off in separate directions. Bill is absolutely right, if we did anything I think we accomplished a spirit of cooperation on the subcommittee and there were give and takes. I think the agreement represents win win situations for the county and win win situations for the city. I think Monica explained the willingness of the city to consult with the county on the issue of the automatic extension of the two mile extraterritorial limit. That that will not be an automatic thing as she showed happen in the Windsor Ridge annexation. The other willingness on the part of the city and I thought it was somewhat interesting when I talked to staff that presently in areas 5 & 6 within the one mile limit, both bodies are suppose to impose city design standards upon subdivisions that presently occur and I know that I have been on P/Z for almost 12 years and I can't remember one where city design standards were imposed on the one mile extraterritorial limit. Development appears to be concentrated in the county. It appears to be concentrated in the north and northeast quadrant. And I certainly will tell you that that was done purposely and you will hear tonight if some of the numbers that could occur into that particular are based on total acres and total numbers at the density but the assumption on the part of the commission, right or wrong, but the assumption was development in that area will occur approximately the same or near the present development that is occurring. Thank you. Lacina/ Okay, at this time what I would like to do is ask if there F012494 -- , i 1 " ( I i, , . r II! ,I ji !1 I: ' 'I',:' . i': " ~. Iii i1;! I ,i '1 II " I) 1 i. , ! I I' 'I! , I' '. 'I " " i I I ,i I l:i ,d :l ,i " " ~ f ~ 1 ~ & .'~ " ~ , ~ I, f: ~ I I I , / I ',; I' C' I ',' 1 I ' .' " '," ',' ~ 'I . I \ ".... '.' , ' . . I . ' . ' I , ' . ~ . I ' . . '.. j , . ' ",,'" , ,,' l: ','. ' . ~ ., .. ~ " ." _. ' .' // " ''1 .1., -"'-.- '-------'- Joint meeting page 11 is any comments from the councilor board and then we will move into public input. Anyone wish to say anything at this time. Kubby/ I have a few questions. I know that one of the things that the county and the city has disagreed on is whether this agreement is a binding document or whether it is to be used as guidelines and I wondered if the fringe area subcommittee has discussed that and what you proposed this new document would be if it should pass. Would it be a binding agreement or would it be used as guidelines. Lacina/ Tom or Bill, do you have any- Terry/ My understanding that it would be a binding document but I would surely probably pass final judgement to the attorneys and/or Monica and Rick. But that was our feeling when we worked on this thing that it would be binding. Horow/ specificallY if you could answer. specifically my interest is in terms of the review for the next two miles or even the review for the downzoning. This document says that it is the intent. It is not an automatic downzoning as soon as this document is signed. It would be the intent that each time a parcel was considered that the two bodies would consider that for downzoning rather than a blanket down zoning in these issues. Is that-am I right or wrong on this. Moen/ The Fringe Agreement, adoption of this agreement, if those terms would be accepted, would not rezone that land automatically. That would have to be a separate action done with appropriate notice given by the county board of supervisors independent of adoption of the Fringe Agreement. Horow/ So that this sets out the intent. Moen/ Yes, it is a policy document. It is not a regulatory document. i I i I I 1 , I i Ii \ , I , ! j 'I ii. I, i Ii I' " Ii 1 " , " :(- ;l " i q , , [,; " " il , i (, , 'i '.' r, I' 11 j I " ri 'i i "I ! I /. I ",'.l! "'I ! i .: ",',1. ',-' -.,.., , Nov/ I think it does say that the intent is to do the rezoning within one year. But it doesn't set anything more specific than that, does it. Terry/ That is terrible and embarrassing after we worked on this long to say that can I piCk that out, I don't know, Naomi, and obviously I am not alone because Monica is looking. While they are looking for this let me make one thing very clear if you would. We are not going to be able to cover every finite particle and parcel of this thing. There are going to be ambiguities unfortunately. There are in every ordinance. F012494 I ! I I , , , , I I , , , , , 1 ii , " i , I I, I , I I ',_' ".~..'on'h'_"'" .. "....... ~ -'.. - ~'" ..... - I " , ' , " , ' ':,,' ,:'1 I .,Ll" ,'", ',;1' ",,:' ,'. .: . .:. _ . j .. ..'::... ~, ,t .' . .' , " , .' I . //' //) , , " , , Joint meeting page 12 There are in every law. But we are trying to erase as many of those as we can because that is one of the greatest problems of the existing one that we have. It has so many ambiguities to it and the wording is circumstantial if you will and so I think that as we get farther and this comes back to us that we will, in fact, try to take care of some of your concerns with finite wording and stuff like this. Horow/ It is on page 5 a.2. It says measures shall be taken within one year of adoption of this agreement. Terry/ So, you are talking about A- Horow/ A.2. Terry/ Measures outlined in this agreement-I am reading this for the pUblic's benefit. Measures outlined in this agreement which require rezoning a specific area shall be undertaken within one year of adoption of this agreement and Monica is telling me that yes, it is true. KUbby/ So, would fringe area B., within that one year would be zoned to Ag and then if somebody wanted to be zoned residential is it that they would have to be annexed before that rezoning to residential would take place. Moen/ That is the agreement that we are suggesting with the county. That the county take action within a year of adoption of the agreement to downzone the designated areas to agricultural and that it would remain agricultural until such time as that land were annexed into Iowa city and then Iowa city would give it a urban or a city zoning classification and would be permitted to develop under those requirements. KUbby/ So is that answer three. There is a hatched area within one mile of Iowa city and then an unhatched one mile after that. Is what you just said true for both the hatched and the unhatched areas. Moen/ Only the hatched areas. The- Kubby/ So it goes to Taft. Moen/ Yes. That illustrates the area that we have the ability in the long range to serve with our sanitary sewer system. / Can we see the overhead again on that question. Moen/ Sure. '.'1 I F012494 ,,' ".;', , \> ..!l 1 i i I I I' , i i: " I I .1 ; Ii -' Ii Iii 'I II I' :!:' ;! r ,. " Ji ij ; 1 , \ I II " '. I ., - I 'I Ii)' l' i\ < " Ii , I 1 I .,j. Ii! ,I, I " .' I "I ~! .. y. " I , : ! II "II' I " , I .~~ '. [I I i' i ': " , " WI''' ...... ~..,." ----..... .....-- ~ 4rf-'...... -- - -- .........-...,..-.- -- - -'ff - .... -- -. .... ~ ~. , y ... .~ ~ \ -~ ,. ....' ' 1 r ", '. '._' ,J'" I LI' I I~ ' . ' . ' . , ..1 , .1, ' " ' , .' ",,' . , . ' , ':, .' ,;' J ,,' ,'," ,,... .' ,,;.' , / , >\1 .::" -'- --:.: ---~._--- Joint meeting page 13 Kubby/ So the area east of Taft Avenue would that be down zoned to Ag as well. Moen/ No. Most of that land is already agricultural. We are only concerned about- This illustrates the existing zoning within the fringe area. The areas or the sections in yellow identify land that is presently zoned residential within the county. So you can see that land immediately east of Iowa city and south of Iowa city already has the right, by the county, to develop for residential purposes. It hasn't and according to the existing Fringe Agreement, if it were to-if an application were to come in for subdividing and according to the Fringe Agreement we would impose city urban design standards on those plats. But because of its high annexation potential and the risk that a subdivision would be approved without those urban design standard we are suggesting that that land be down zoned until such time as it is annexed into Iowa city. Lacina/ Anyone else. Baker/ Monica, would you clarify this for me. The existing residential zoning in the county along the fringe there, what is the density allowed now. Moen/ About RS which is one dwelling unit per acre. Baker/ And the typical zoning around just inside the city limits which abuts the fringe area. Moen/ There is a variety. It is predominantly RS-5 which is five dwelling units per acre but there are some areas on the east side that are significantly higher than that. The-much of the land within Iowa city has a RS-5 or five dwelling units be acre designation. Baker/ So the probability that the land if it were annexed into the city and developed at residential standards for being developed at a higher allowable density than it is now in the county. That that is the probable use. Moen/ That is very likely, yea. That you could get more lots per acre if you were in the corporate limits. Baker/ That therefore and this is sort of a hypothetical question, therefore, theoretically increase the value of the land if you develop it at a higher density. Moen/ I think on the open market that you could probably CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 94-22 SIDE 2 , , , , . I Ii I . " ; 11 I W , " I'! ,. " , ~ . i ~ [.i, ,1 ,.. I,; ~. fj I I lj I' 1 I , H J ':i II .,'. I ~I .' , I /' I I I , II ~ , ,; " F012494 d -'."r "IfIf'''' - 'I '; ~ ...., --. -~-.....-- . , , , , " , I .",{ '1 Ct' ',,',.' " .' " :.. . :1 , ,L .:1 ':- . ,'. . ;'. .; _'. , ..,' . " ',,' ~Il.. , ., .' ,.' . " / i-'I ), .~. , ......------..--.. Joint meeting page 14 Baker/ It would be greater value than it is right now. Moen/ Yes, I think you could draw that conclusion. Baker/ Okay. Lacina/ Anyone else? Meade/ Can you tell me how many houses there are in Iowa city right now. Do you have any idea how many houses in Iowa city. Moen/ No I don't. At one point-r don't know for the 1990 census. I believe the 1980 census had somewhere around 18,000-19,000 households but I don't know that. Meade/ Households but I am talking houses. I was told it was about 10,000 and I want to know if you can verify that. Moen/ I can't tell you that. Meade/I think it is 10,000 right now. Nov/ I heard somewhere between 10,000-12,000. Meade/ Between 10,000-12,000. Nov/ But I don't remember what number it was. Meade/ While we are on this sUbject. I had intended to bring this up now but I think it is interesting and fun lots of times to do things with numbers and so if you don't mind I would like to do that right now. So I would like to go back to the overhead where they were talking about the Windsor Ridge in that particular area. I am going to describe a particular area of land. It is between Taft Avenue and Scott Avenue, east west boundaries. The north south boundary would be Rochester Avenue and Highway #6. Being an old country girl I look at this in sections. There is approximately four sections of land in that particular area that I described. That means there would be, if you figured three and half houses per section in that area, you could come up-you just told me you could do it up to the density as high as 5,000. You could put 8,960 house in that small four d\sections of land I just described and you would almost double the size of Iowa city. If you put it at five houses per acre it would be another 12,000 to 13,000 houses. Now it took us 150 years to get to the 10,000-12,000 and if you took just that little bit you could double the size of your city without having to incorporate all of this other stuff that you are talking about if you are talking strictly houses. If you are talking F012494 -"-... ~--'"'' . i , I I ! I I ! ; I I I I I ; " i 'l I i i Iii i Iii J , ,I I I 'I i Ii I" l- J .' 1'1 , " 1\ , " - 't :1 I' - l' , ;;. 1 i L' II I' " ,1 '.I , "I l: II l I 'I '-'f J: , "I I il' I; J I i II' I ! I , Ii, L ',(, l /, ;1; j d , I I , "1 , ;! I. ....\1.:' .".". ....... ~"""1 ~-. ~-- ~ .;'......--.~ --- ----...... ...- - - - ~I~'" .. -- - . !, ,', " ' " ,'''':' "'-l" ,: '" . " ",,'. ' ." ",'/ I LI ,,(..J. ,:.'"," ,:' .' , , ,I," '..' , ,'. " > '. . ; '" ~. I' . _. _"". .' , / // \ " 1 ,t. -. . -," Joint meeting page 15 strictly residential. I just think that is an interesting bunch of numbers to look at. So I don't understand why all of these areas need to - Kubby/ You have to remember that you have to have room for streets and for schools and for parks and for shopping. Meade/ I assume you have that number, Karen, in your number of three and half houses per acre or five houses per acre. You have streets and that. Throgmorton/ pat,I don't quite understand you. What do you mean that all of this other area wouldn't be needed. I I ! . I , I i ! ! I I Meade/ I am just pointing out that if you simply took that small area that I described within the boundaries that I described you could double the size of your city as far as houses were concerned. I am just making a point of how many fun things you can do with numbers. Pigott/ So are you aSking why- Meade/ No, I didn't ask a question. I just pointed out some fun numbers. Lacina/ Anyone else. Pigott/ I had a question. And I don't know that there is a specific answer. In the section 1 of the Fringe Area Development Policies. Part of the purpose is to protect and to preserve the fringe areas' natural resources and environmentally sensitive features. And I just wondered whether the plan or whether the members of the team that put this plan together thought about how they plan to identify these environmentally sensitive areas and implement protection of those areas. I don't know whether this plan addresses that specifically or whether it was thought that perhaps this plan shouldn't address that specifically and if so. Devorak/ On a rural design standard what we do is the clustering concept and we have had very good luck with that in large scale developments and large area. We do take into consideration quite a bit of the rural natural of development. You have probably noticed some of the development out around Coralville Lake. And we try to blend developments by clustering so as to leave at least one half or two thirds of the area as an outlot. So theoretically if you have a 30 acre application for SUbdivision at three acre density, one house in three acres, then you are going to end up with two thirds of that as an outlot. And then logically we try to build that F012494 ---..... --.~ ~- . -- i ! I I , I I ;1 i: I " , l,j i " I /' i II! I , 1 I , d , 1 1 " , :1 I " !, " j i " ~ 1" I, , , ;14 I " " i": , I " I f, I 1 I I,j i . i ii I , . !'l I , ,'.' r ' l' I , ! I , , i I i , I. l, 1 :1 : 1 : j I j j II ,: . , 'd . I, . I i 'I', 1"'1" ':1' ,y[ : ,.' ." ", ,'" .I Il;...; " " ~'. ' , , . I , . . ' '. . . J _ I '. ""M . _ I , ! I , ' ',' \, I , . --"' __.n_............. Joint meeting page 16 I I I I I I I I ! , i ! i in through our planner. We try to build that so the housing blends more suitably in with there and has less affect or less impact 0 the rural character of the development. Pigott/ I guess if I could just rephrase it a little bit. I guess I was asking whether, you know, in certain areas we have discovered there are environmentally sensitive wetlands in other areas. I wondered before whether we could or whether this committee has thought about identifying those areas as part of this agreement that are sensitive and including that so that we don't just develop in areas. So that we think about it and they are identified for possible development. Devorak/I still may not be answering your question. On a rural standpoint through the county every application that comes before us we take a criteria that I use plus other criteria into play. Every development. It is routine. Kubby/ So is there any plan. I know that the county has done a natural areas inventory and the city is finiShing up our inventory. Is there any plan to enact any legislation to protect the areas that are on the natural areas inventory plan so that you can then have that as a set of criteria. Devorak/ We were until that got completed and I am not sure the status of that on the county level. Also the board has appointed John Shaw in our office to build that into our Comprehensive Plan. Again, I don't know the status of having the rural area done. But at least that is where we are at right now. Gibson/ The inventory is in process at this time. Pigott/ And it will be part of this. Horow/ No, not necessarily. Meade/ No, it is not. Gibson/ I am a member of the committee from Iowa city. We addressed this issue and I believe and I will attempt to speak for the other members, perhaps incorrectly. But I believe that we decided that we were in a compromise posture and I think, frankly, that this is one of the things that we walked away from from the city perspective understanding that it is clearly within the jurisdiction of the county anyway and given we were attempting to find a compromises both directions I think we walked away from that. Not attempting to underrate its importance but it is something that we probably could not get accomplished with this document. F012494 I i, ...aid... L -__hh. ___ , , . I I I , , , i ! i , , , I i I .1 , I J' I !i: Ii i j j' It. Ii , " II' ! " ii n , I " .i II -- I! i li' I)" ',' 'J i,! II f , ;1 [ II i , , ii' ~ ! 'I " '1 1 , I u j' f I , " I , l l I i ,M ,I I j i 1 , :i ii " , , , , ", " , . ' " . , ( , .', ~...;... - , , " ,'1,1 12/' jd ,.'. i'-~' ,'.." , . ~ ,. ..; . ,: :" ,~- ,~ ''':''=, .' . '. . / // \1 " ,l, , Joint meeting page 17 Kubby/ So then would you say that the statement in here that Bruno read about part of the purpose of the agreement is to protect environmentally sensitive areas is how you decided the density of development in A, B, and C. I mean the way that that statement is implemented. Gibson/ I would say that it is implemented more in an attempt to concentrate the development of housing to more nearly urban standards and so forth so that we could still allow the density of development to occur but stay out of the sensitive areas. f I. I U )l I \ ! I ~ Lacina/ I think out of respect for the public and the people that came to have statements tonight, we are going to hear from Charlie and then I will make a couple of clarifications. Then we are going to go to the p.h. After the p.h. we are going to come back to the discussion because I think this could move on for quite some time. So Charlie, do you want to make a final point. Charlie Duffy/ I have a couple of questions to ask judging by what the city assessor has told me and I think that we had our county meeting I said there was 3475 acres of farm land inside the corporate limits of Iowa city. But evidently Windsor Ridge was included in that. So I just figure 3,666 acres already inside the corporate limits of Iowa City. Plus in the near future going as I look at this map that there could be at least another 900, would that be about right, acres proposed. Moen/ Not counting Windsor Ridge we are looking at an application of Sycamore Farms of 420 acres and that is the only other application that we have before us. Duffy/ So right here, 420- I got 4280 acres. Would that be about right. Of farm land. Well, I am relying on the city assessor not the county. Okay. The zoning in area B, how long is that-some of this property is zoned residential. Do you know how many years it has been that way. , ! , I, I;' 11 I; i' Ii :1 II I, II I' Iii l' r' 1 :: "I " , " " I , I: f' " ; I ,,! :! , ~ II ' 1 " 1,/ I , I I " , I I , I i I ,Ii Ii " / 1960. Duffy/ It has been that way then more than proposed fringe area agreement now that has been implemented since 1983. You said that that goes to 2005. So that has actually been zoned for 33 years. I believe that is all for right ow. Lacina/ Joe, do you want to make a quick comment. Bolkcom/ At our p.h. a week and a half ago there was a lot of concern expressed about the proposal to down zone and I guess F012494 :j , I ;, ........", i " ;\! " "IIIJf'". - .' I' " ':"1 ,'-' 1,' I' ;'! "1 " " ~"~ i" i ~ ,'-; Ji " iil: ~,i n fl '1 U ! , i I I - "11'1 -. --..-.....- , , ( ,- I ,_ _, "', L'I 'I .t' " , ' .' - ,I ..,,- , . . , ,,/1, I-' ," , .', ,'" ' : .' :~: ' '. . . " ~~/ "..' ,,~. . . / :', ~\1 , .I -"." ...........-.. Joint meeting page 18 it is a question for committee members why was this proposed. What was the importance of this. It seems like the county potentially has power to decide some of the concerns about density tho\rough platting and as controversial this particular concept is I am just trying to get a better handle on why do we need that. That was a question I think a lot of people had on their minds. If anyone wants to take a shot at that. Tom or Dick or Bill. Scotti To be very honest with you I don't think the committee thought it would be as controversial as what it is to be very honest with you. I sat on the commission in Iowa City and we rezoned the entire community in 1983, some were down zoned and some were upzoned. Basically the zoning at that particular time mirrored the usage and most of the land that is proposed for down zoning in this document, if it were down zoned to ag is being utilized as ag. So consequently I know from my own perspective in dealing with zoning issues at the city level if in fact you are zoning for existing uses, the emotionalism is not as great as if it is a down zoning or an upzoning with intended uses on the map. It may not be the answer but I think that was one. Bolkcom/ If the downzoning fails to pass in this document what would your recommendation be, Tom, for the next step for protecting both the county's and the city's interest. Scotti I don't want to speak for the entire committee, Joe, but I would say what we would probably fall back on is the requirement for full city design standards in that one mile area and that in the past, at least what we have been told, is that in the past has made development so expensive in that particular area that either development did not occur or they viewed annexation as an alternative and that is in the present fringe area agreement now for areas 5 & 6 which mirror area B, I believe. Nov/ Tom, has this happened. Has anyone actually done city design standards in that area. Scotti No, no that-I don't think so. They looked at it. Windsor Ridge looked at it and their conclusion was, again, based on what we were told, their conclusion was that it was too expensive to design at urban standards and remain in the county and that was one of the motivations they had for annexation as I understand it. Kubby/ So then, I want to make sure my thinking is right. There is down zoning that occurs but the city only allows developmsnt in a certain density then it is going to have to be-that people F012494 )J - -. ___h... __ '. . . l l, ~ i' II, II I il ,I 'j " I;' , il . I: t' I (; " I, I' I' . .i. II I, 1\ iJ , I I I, II: I , ,', .~ I i: 1:1 ! i I I I I I I I 1 i ! I ! i\ \.' I I ~ H ~ 'I i , ,1 , ~ ~ i; i: , , "". '- 1..J ":,..'." I , ,"/ '[:1 ',jd. "':lJ '. " ' ' ,;' .,' . :,' ',,~. ,1\.... " , I I " .I ,,. -, Joint meeting page 19 are saying that that is not feasible and if I am going to do it for that cost I want to be annexed into the city and then you will be upzoned a little bit. Scotti In all likelihood. Kubby/In essence it may be the same result. Scotti Could be. The end result might be the same. I might agree with that, Karen. Lacina/ Okay. I want to make two quick points of which if there are any substantive changes to the proposal it will need to go back through the p.h. process or both sides. The other point is that it has been asked in the past why apply city development standards to an area that may be annexed and part of the reason deals with the reason is the fire equipment that needs to move down the streets. The county has a narrow street vs. the city streets. The idea of the ADA requirements on sidewalks and setbacks. The county is not obliged to have because we don't have sidewalks. The federal regulations that are placed on the city for some funding as well as the need for alleys and service areas to provide the services to the city. If you have a development to county standards it is much more difficult to go in and also the density is less. That is some of the justification for having development standards. At this point then I would like to open it up to the pUblic to have input. If you would-what I will ask is that when you-if you would address us from the podium. Please give us your name, address, and if you could take about five minutes and then I would like to hear from everybody at least once before anyone comes back. We would appreciate that very much. Kubby/ I have a request of the public. If you have an idea of whether you can compare the current fringe area agreement with the new one, as to which one you would rather have. Those comments would be helpful to me. Walton/ I own a farm south of town. I brought this along tonight because a little over 200 years ago we decided in this country that we would not have government without representation. And by placing us that live in the county under city supervision with not being able to vote I think is that same process. I own a farm right across from the Regency Trailer Court. Now I have heard about the county. I have heard about the city. But I haven't heard about the people. When I bought the ground I paid $230,000 for it. The reason I paid that price which is $1811 a acre was the fact was that a great deal of it is zoned recreational. Along with the fact Roy F012494 . " ,~ I I I I I I l " :'1 " I 1 i , 1 , " , ! I I )'1 , , ,., " I: , \ ,Ii I I 1'1 .' ,. II 11 T ,. '; i ! ji :.1 I Ji. L) I:i I , I . If , I I II ! , Ii . I 1\, ""'Jr. - i ~ 1 ~ I ! ~~ ~ , f ~ \ I I I f I ~ , I , I ! - '1---..,- ~....~ ..-'......--~ l' ' " r " ,-, 1-" '" '".. " " , I'Ll' , "I '1" " " " ,'I j-' " I. " , .' ~. .' '..: . ~' . :~. . ,~, ,-' . " , '" Joint meeting page 20 that I rezoned the front part of it recreational. I have not made use of this only because of time. But if I turn around- average farm ground, which mine isn't even as good as average which is $1100 an acre. That means that I have lost a lot of money and I don't feel that I should be governed by the city when I don't have representation in there. I won another piece of property on the west side of Iowa City that has been in the city limits about 28 years and when they wanted me to go into the city, I had a choice, I could go to Coralville or I could go to Iowa City. It is on the IWV Road right by where the pond use to be north of there. I went with the City of Iowa city with the understanding it was zoned half acre lots in the county. That my zoning would continue on with the city and I would have sewer and water in no more than 20 years. I haven't seen a sewer, water and I can't even get garbage people to come out and pick my garbage up for my renter even though I got to pay for it every month. You know, I just feel we have elected the county officials and I feel that you are dumping us if this agreement goes through. I mean, just like my property. What is it going to be. Is it going to be recreational or is it going to be farm land or what is it going to be. It is recreational now. Where do I go from here. I mean, you know, you are talking about-you know I realize these people have put a lot of work into this but I have put an awful lot of work into my life to pay the $230,000 for my property. I mean, I went without a lot of things. My wife and I have nice cars, we have a home. But we don't go out to bars and I haven't for years. We don't go out and eat. We put our money in our property. The present price of my payment is $1610 a month plus that fact that I have to pay my insurance. I got to pay my taxes and the rest of it. You know, if this goes through, you know, and I am zoned back to residential my property, you know, goes right down the gully on price. In the first place, the county just zoned the Koffron Farm a half acre lot. And I didn't even think it should have been done but they did it. Bang. Okay, so if that is fair for that property then is it not fair for mine. I have seven acres against the highway. I mean at that rate a half acre lot on seven acres, that is fourteen acres and lots are going for $20,000-30,000 out in the country. The other alternative I have and believe me if this happens it will happen it I will turn it into a sand and gravel pit. You know, it is beautiful ground. I have got five bald eagles that live iin my place. I got 10-15 hawks that live at my place. So I am trying to help the nature as such but I am suppose to lose my shirt and have my property devalued by 50% because the city wants to have government over me. I don't think that is right and believe me it will go to court before it happens. Thank you very much. " " '( .' ) J , i i , I I i j ,i .! ; .; Ii I i I Ii il " IF i! i ~ I:, , 1\ ,::: . J: I " I;' 1:1 I: I,: II I Ii 'I ! I " ': , , F012494 ;i , , \.; ~". - ------"" ~-. ---...... '-e.. ..-'....... - -- ~...-..........-------.,f".... -..........-. ... , ' f, ' ,,'/ L/:. ;-, ' f~'" " '.,' ,':, '" .' '1-' " , ' , :" :,: M '1 '\" ' _''.'' _.',,' ~ , ' ' .I '-, .~, '-- Joint meeting page 21 Throg/ steve, would it be possible to ask- Lacina/ I think for the purposes of the p.h. it is best if we hear from the public first. Throg/ I was just simply wondering whether it would be possible to ask purely clarifying questions. And secondly I noticed that you made a comment about where you lived and I found myself just a little bit confused and I was wondering if each person who speaks who wants to talk about a specific location could show us on a map. I I I I ! ; i I ! I .1 ~ ~ i I Walton/ I would be happy to do that. Throg/ That is all. Walton/ Do you know where the Rengency is here (points to map). Throg/ So you are currently in part of the area covered by the current fringe area agreement. Meade/ Yes. He would be downzoned. Walton/ But I would be down zoned because right now it is recreational. It is zoned recreational. That is what I paid for. Jim Dane/4507 Dane Road Southwest and I live just outside in section 32. Just outside the residential but in the growth area. In the two mile limit,excuse me. I am currently serving as president of the Johnson County Farm Bureau and while I understand the city of Iowa city is trying to work with the residents of the county to set up an orderly pattern for future growth of Iowa city and while the property I farm is not among the property being downzoned to ag land, I am worried about the plan being presented which arbitrarily downzones individuals property back to ag land, it is unfairly reducing the value of an individual's property without compensation and could even be considered a taking. I wish to state Farm Bureau's position on private property rights. Within the past two months delegates from every county in Iowa met in Des Moines. One of the primary statements from that House of Delegates stated that we believe that any action by government that significantly diminishes an owner's right to use his property constitutes a taking of that owner's property. We believe the government should provide a due process and reasonable compensation for the amount that the owner's right has been diminished. We oppose agency regulations which unreasonable encroach on the rights of property owners. And I guess my suggestion for this agreement F012494 - _1/' -- ~ 1"""""""'--;- \ I I i I , Ii , I Ii II I Ii, 'I II j, , :1 I~ I' j " Ii " " I,! " j". ,I i" , i i! i i ' , 'I 'j i I I I " .,1 j ; " , i " i j j I I I I I , I J, , :1 " , - ":i, , . i.,' ,,'/ 'L/" 'j:r ":~t.: ",<:" I,:' : " \ .~ '_ ' L' ,~, " I 1......;.. ~; _ " ' "'. ' / .', \ , 1 I,. Joint meeting page 22 k i: , if it is changed and it should be that the zoning be grnadfathered in as is and any future growth would have to be looked at. But that is my suggestion. Rich Borchard/ I live on Rapid Creak Road. I want to thank the county and the city for allowing public input. At least that one thing the policy has done has got you all together. I know Karen asked if we would compare the old policy with the new policy and I was around in 1983 when the original policy was developed and I am speaking mainly for area 4 because that is where I am mostly concerned about. It said that residential development in this area should be discouraged. That is the very first few words. New policy says permit residential development by favorably considering. Has the word favorably been taken out of there. i~ , " (I , ~j ;j '.. " t; L~'j c rt " ;" " / I think it has. Lacina/ Officially. Thank you. Borchard/ As you can see this policy has been nibbled away at in ten years quite dramatically just by that statement right there. It has been amended approximately three times since the original one has been drawn up. I think that indicates there is a disagreement between how to interpret policies, more than the pOlicy itself. I would like to make a few other statements about concerns I have. I'm concerned about the road safety in our area as well as all other areas. Our road counts already exceed recommended road passages. In a 1983 study I believe the road count was supposed to be 400 and some and it's way above that now. Highway 1 is just getting a lot of road trips a day increasingly. The quantity and quality of water in our area and law enforcement responding rapidly, I'm worried about those issues out there as well. Septic tanks were really not meant for large scale usage and River Heights may be a prime example of this. I don't know what a lot of septic tanks being developed you know put into our area will lead to. I also question how are you going to enact road impact fees. Who's going to be the first one. How do you go about deciding how much and if the guy doesn't pay, how are you going to make him pay. I've seen some prime examples in this town where people build apartments up next to big large cliffs and they cave in and the guy gets off forever. So you know I'm concerned about the enforceability of it. They're nice flowery words but I'm not that in practicality they'll very good unless there's some real definite wording put in there. As I understand there was a 1977 comprehensive plan made up that mentioned something about the implementation of an environmental protection plan and I'm not sure that's ever been applied to the county. I would like to see that reviewed and see how it applies to the F012494 ;.j ~: : n ') f,.; , ~ ~ " ;i 'I Ii: ;.) ;', " \" !:I zi , "1 ~: ~ ~ i1 i 1 ~ I ; i ! ~ , ~ ! , ' , ';1 " 'I II: :, " !: [, [ II 'i I" " 'j' 11 II I' "il - i;' I; I', i! :1. , '!.J j 1 I ,; I I!, il , , i I , , . ' I " ' " ", . ' ': ""I I'Ll' "1-( '/?{-" "'" ". .' ,"_. ' ",' ',' I, o ' ' ,I,., ..' , . ,..." -,.,........, " ' . / , 1 -' Joint meeting page 23 " ;: development they propose for out in our area. Realistically the new policy is covered with very generalized words as the old policy was very specific. I think this will lead to more disagreements through misunderstanding between the county and ci ty as well demonstrated through the question and answer tonight before this hearing was put on. Asked a lot of questions and there was a lot of nebulous answers. Those are going to come out in every day applications and even worse. So I really don't think this policy answers much of anything. I would like to think that the city and county could get together and plan how they're going to develop these areas as a group. And I really don't the think the county or city wants to relinquish any of their authority in any of these areas. I don't see why the city would want to relinquish their right to annex or their thoughts of annexing up in the northern part of town just because it doesn't look feasible for 20 years. Things change rapidly. I don't think the city or the county want to give up all their authority in that two mile band just it's in the east and southeast and the south. Thank you very much. , , Ii , I I :1 " " 'I :' I" (,' .. Ii' r t ~ \ . j, ~ If I r, ) " ;f III ii ; !! .,J /I L ; 'j J i , .I ,I , ", ! I " :! i: " " , '.J 1~ ~ : <; :i " ~ 'r ;j ;~ I.: ~I f! {! " k ~.~ ~1 ,; II (1 I I Lacina/ Thank you very much. Brian O'Harra/ 4725 American Legion Road SE. I live at the open end of Windsor Ridge there. I'm a new resident to Johnson County. I lived in Iowa city all my life and I've never been to so many council and zoning meeting since I moved out to the county. I recently last spring purchased ten acres of property along American Legion Road and I'll point this area out. This is American Legion Road. I'm located right near Snider Creek. My house where the dot is. I purchased that property at a residential price. I didn't purchase the property at a agricultural price. First of all I'm not a developer. I consider myself a environmentalist and I look at this and I'm aSking what are we getting from this. I see a loss of property value. It limits the options either for me or my children with what I can do with the property. And I've also been told it can affect the loan rate when you go to get a loan on property to do something. I drove around the east part of Iowa city and I've lived in Iowa city all my life and gee we've had this area zoned residential for 34 years. I say it looks pretty good on the east side of town in my opinion as far as what kind of growth we ended up with. I'm told at the last meeting wi th the fringe area criterion determining where Iowa city would best like to see its growth was determined by soil type, corn suitability, and where a gravity flow sewer system would be installed. Well are we following this criteria. I come out here to Windsor Ridge. Here's Iowa city's limits approximately right here. We're now driving through Iowa city or driving through Johnson county and we have this isolated pocket of F012494 i ,i ~,."",..~". '! " i ---- ~~---... - -~-- ~ ..-, ...... - -- ~"---..------ - ~~ - ...-- ... ---. ~.....---- \ r, ""/' ,LI~ ',;-i' Ct "','-:''- :",,' ,', . ".-l ,',' '1-,','" " , " '. .' ," J'. " :. "', _ ". _ t -. . , , ;' r, \ " 1 .!, '_._n___ _....... .-- Joint meeting page 24 " i Iowa city. within this isolated pocket there is three acre that is county. Now how does this effect emergency services. I think it becomes very confusing. Now they tell me okay, one of the prime criteria is for gravity flow sewer system and that is what we are looking for in zoning. What do we have here. We have a sewage lift pump. I am told that this is a temporary measure until they put a sewer pipe through Snyder Creek. I addressed this at the last meeting. Where is Snyder Creek. I own that property. There is no easement through the property. Why did we annex 240 acres of county property in Iowa city without these easements in place. So I am sitting across the street from this development. I am not saying it is a bad development. I can see the hand writing on the wall. The first time the power goes out these expensive houses get sewer in their basement and then all of a sudden we condemn my ground with a sewer pipe for the good of the people. Okay, now I have a sewer pipe going through Snyder Creek because I have already been told that the sewage lift pump is temporary and then you are going to turn around and you are going to down zone me to agriculture. And I guess I can't see what is going on here because I can' t see the good of what we are gaining in the Fringe Area Agreement in the way it stands now. And what I would like to do is encourage the city council and board of supervisors to vote no on the current Fringe Area Agreement and I would like you to go back and reassess what you-what kind of agreement we really want and don't downzone the area B. Thank you. Jean Fountain/ 4445 Sand Road S.E. I own the property in the fringe area. I want first of all to know several people have said tonight the present agreement is not working. I would like to know specifically what is not working about it. Then a few years ago I read an editorial in the Press Citizen, it said exactly this: downzoning is always a taking. Now, in the last meeting that this group had on January 16 Monica said that there had never been an involuntary annexation. I talked to my neighbor about this. My neighbor is much more up on civic affairs than I am and word was from the neighbor that yes there have been involuntary annexations. Then I talked with an attorney who works with abstracts and he said certainly there have been involuntary annexations. Now, of course, whatever has been done had been done. Do we have any assurance that in the future there won't be involuntary annexations. I contend that by ignoring and countermanding the zoning conducted by our zoning department you are also doing a taking there. This agreement would destroy the authority of our own county zoning department. Thank you. Bolkcom/ Would anybody like to try to answer the question why our current agreement is not working. , , i , '.. I I, I 'I: II Iii ,I :i II: I: I; I: I. . ~ I: " " !.' ti u II 1 ~I '. I ! j " I' i: " r , I ~ , ; i I I " ~ t 1 , ,I I ~ ~ F012494 ;\ - ~ ",...,.,...~". 'I ........ --"~. I ! , , ; " ii ii Ii ,i l') ,. 1:, l1 V t P " " ~I i r. f; ~ ~ ,Q " \1 " l; ,. i1 f] ~ fl ~ [I i ! 9\-- qa, ..-'........ -- ~~ ...,..---------.,f"... -......-~- .. . , . , , . . , .' .' I" . '- - .' . '., .", ::."-'1' ,LI "'"1 'I't. . ""',. . ' .r : '....:'~ ,'! "'.. ,-- -,' . \ ^ ,; / , \ 1 ,j Joint meeting page 25 Lacina/ I think it is probably best if we wait until everyone has had a chance to speak at least once and then we can- Don Slothower/ I live on the west city limits just below where that bulge is off to the west. That-there are two parallel lines right there. One of them is the road. My address is 965 Slothower Road and Slothower Road coming south for the IWV Road. And the city limits is 300 feet west of that road. and our house is in the city limits of Iowa city since 1966. That was an involuntary annexation. In 1966 they took everything from University Heights clear out to that point. And it came in as what was called R-1-8 in those days and that is 10,000 square foot lot which is roughly four lots to the acre. Then they had the first comprehensive plan I think they called it in '83 or whatever. It changed the R-1-1, is that what it is. RR-l. okay. So that was-what is that? One acre lots. That is one acre lots. I bought it when it was R-1-8 what is in the city limits which is about seven acres and have over 100 acres outside the city limits in the fringe area development. Okay. The gray shaded area I guess is what is sewerable. At least on the west side over there. I am going to tell you a little bit about the sewage. Lacina/ Don, if you could, could you speak into the mic. Slothower/ Okay. The area-can you tell where Melrose is, the IWV Road. The area north of that, part of that is developed already. Not saying anything against it, it is a nice development and everything like that. But we are talking about sewage and what is sewer able and that sewage has to be lifted twice to get to the sewage treatment plant. Clear out- and that is sewerable clear out to that bulge there which is west of me, north and west. Lifted twice. The older lift station is 27 years old behind Hawkeye Court Apartments. It costs a half million dollars to build. It is a big lift station to take care of that whole area. And in today's standards that would probably be $2 million to build that lift station. It has to be checked everyday and they tell me an average of two man, two hours. You know, when it requires servicing, greasing or whatever. Everyday don't require two hours but on an average. And then the new lift station, they had to build another lift station to service that area about two years ago. And that one has to be checked at the same time. Now, see, it all depends on what you say is sewerable. Anything is sewerable if you pump it enough times. You know. Okay. Now where I live you see Willow Creek coming across highway 218 and that is why the city set that as a city limits in 1966 because that is sewerable by gravity. And actually it goes past that city limits line to the west more than a quarter of a mile. My land is sewerable by gravity which is F012494 - ..:I:..... i.........-"---..-. I n"., _. ~ i I'. , , , ! " II :1' j{ I: Ii' J:', : h Iii I ': II ,;' 1- ".'.. 'i/I I il i Ii i: ,I i[ '. Ii " ;i , , " :,.' .' J I,Ll' , "'I :J l' ' , , ',' ',,: "" \: . ::.' ',' :r...\ _ " , .' , "'. ' / ':'\ 'I,' '- Joint meeting page 26 i " .. out in the county, west of the city limits. But it is sewerable by gravity. So I guess what I am asking is that the area south of IWV, a portion of it, should be in that shaded area as sewerable without a lift station. That is gravity fall all the way to the sewage treatment plant down in Willow Creek Valley. I might add also that the old lift station, the pumps have to be replaced in that and that is going to cost $100,000 to replace the pumps besides the regular maintenance. That is what you get into in lift stations. See. And that is what I am saying about gravity flow sewers. Some of the stuff that is serviceable by gravity is just not in the developable area. Okay. Myron Smalley/4418 Dane Road S.W. I am curious. According to this map which is the one I had seen earlier, I was outside the fringe area. And I was looking tonight and according to this map I am in the fringe area. I was just curious if this was one of the concessions that the city has made on their fringe area coming into this agreement. Why this area in here had suddenly become part of the fringe area. Moen/ I would have to look at the two maps. There is an area that is part of an area that we share with Hills and maybe that that map incorrectly illustrates or incorporates that area that is actually under the Hills jurisdiction. I would have to compare the two maps. Don Sehr/ 5024 Sharon Center Road S.W. and I live far enough out there that if we are annexed it will probably be Kalona before we will ever get here. So I really don't have any axes to grind or anything else about this. I thought Monica, if I may use a choice of words on the one area of the fringe area over here was captured I think is what she said. I thought that was rather strange choice of words. Excuse me. But I guess I was around when some of these fringe area mistakes were drawn up before and certainly there has been. And I think I would be willing to admit that there were mistakes made in the past and there probably have been now and I understand the need for some fringe areas but I really think this needs to be thought over and taken back. If, as Don says, some of that is gravity out there. If you go a little past Slothower's ground it goes into another water shed that never comes through Iowa city. In some of that ground is still in the two mile area out there that the city shouldn't be imposing their two mile restrictions at all but yet there are areas where they really still don't want development and I think we really need to look probably at what the idea of some of this is is to keep development in the city and sometimes that is not always fair. Thank you. ! 'I i ~ I I I F012494 "'-"".., ..... I I i 'I' " " i : . ~ I t I I' f: , I] 'I I ., 'i I, " : "~I I I , I II " " , 'I " - ~~.,.,..".. ...--.....:1.---..,- ~-- ~ ..-'....... -- ~ -- ...........-....- - - rr~" ~ ....~ ", " -' I' ' , I , I" LI ' '-I d ' , :' , " ',' :'.' ..~1 '. ' " ,'. '" '" I " ,,}, " , . , ," . .", :,,' ....~';- " .' - '~.' "~'., ',' . ,- .I /,'" J" - . -~. --- Joint meeting page 27 I , !, ii ~ , , I I Chuck MUllen/I am an attorney in Iowa city and I live at 3736 Cottage Reserve Road N.E. which is on Lake McBride. I don't have any ground in the fringe area. I did address the county folks at the last p.h. and I have what I suspect is a unique comment to make tonight. Maybe unique in the city's experience at least. The extraterritorial two mile jurisdictional limit has been with us for a long long time. It was in the code when the code section on platting was 409. It was continued in 409A and continued but modified in the current code section which is 354. PrevioUSly the county or, excuse me, the city didn't have a choice. The state fixed its two mile extraterritorial jurisdictional limit and the county was obliged to submit all SUbdivision plats to the city and without the city's approval those plats couldn't be approved in the county. The city of Iowa city has now chosen by ordinance to extend that limit again for the two miles. The statute now, however, is permissive. The city could have chosen to focus on those areas where you felt that there was actually going to be development potential that would impact on the city's growth. In those areas where you can extend sewer without lifting it. But that is not what the city did. The city chose to simply tackle the arbitrary two mile jurisdiction limit, extend it, force county residents into two political processes and folks that is what this is. Every time you go through a SUbdivision it is a political process. My belief is that it ought to be administrative. It isn't really a place for the politicians to impact on the planning because too many things get considered that shouldn't be considered. But it is a political process that we have to live with. But you don't have to live with two of them. If the city isn't going to expand its area into the north are here why does the city subject itself to all of this pain and SUffering. Why go through this political process every time and fight the same battles over and over and over again. Wouldn't it be simpler to have a staff review, a courtesy review. Select those areas where you really believe you are going to be annexing in the short term or the long term and take a 20 year span , : 1 , I " t " " Iii 'I 1\ 1" j' III II, ,I " Ii' r I:: /' , ',' I; , Ii j.! ~ i I 1'1 I I ! II, I , , ! ! i ! , I I i CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 94-23 SIDE 1 Force the people in the county to participate in that political process in the city. They have their own political process in the county believe me. They get all the political they need in the county. They don't need it twice. It seems to me that agreement might be a little more workable if you really focused on those areas where you expect to be developing in the next ten to twenty years. Thank you. Bill Tucker/ I get to talk next because I was Steve Mullen's I mean i " F012494 :1 -....'...,." I, " " -- ~~ c_____""II("".'----- ~-'1 ~ ...- ..--;-~- ~ ..... .....--.--.-r-....-.......-. ....----,.. ).".--....-.--~-- ---".....---~ " " " I , "', ' ' " I. .. - - ' , "I ,1"1 '9: -:1'-' ,,", " ,', ' . ./ L '," " I .... . '. , " " .' , ~ , ' ' . ' .: .:, .. '. __' 1 ,.,'~;.....' . .','" . / " , '\' Joint meeting page 28 !,' i , l ~ ( l Chuck Mullen's senior partner the law firm. Was. I am now retired. I'm an attorney but I'm not speaking to you as an attorney with the exception of answering Karen's first question that she said, is this a binding agreement or is it permissive. The answer legally is that it is binding. otherwise it would mean absolutely nothing. I want to talk to you though as the owner of together with some others of 175 acres of land which is directly adjacent to the city limits on Hwy 6 Bypass and Scott Blvd. I don't think I need to point it out to you as to where it is. We acquired this property 24 years ago. It was purchased basically with the idea that the land would increase in price to a sufficient basis that we would be able to send our kids through college. You could never do that if it were zoned as agricultural property and used as such. We have therefore held on to the property without selling it for any purpose other than hoping that the value of land would increase to a higher and better usage and it has reached that point. But now we are definitely right in the heart of a down grade area. If you do that our property is it's not that we want to develop this for residential purposes but we live along hwy 6 old, which is nothing other than light industry. It is and has been and there's no question but what this is the way that area's going. We have been told that and I don't see our city manager here. I don't know if he's here tonight or not. Approximately five weeks ago Steve invited myself and somebody else who had an ownership interest in this property down to see what our thoughts were in so far as the industrial development of this property. Now it seems a little inconsistent to me to basically talk about a growth along a industrial line of light industry or commercial and yet at the same time want to bring that property back-in same. Now I'm not going to repeat the other arguments I will indicate to you that I was in the county attorneys office with Bill Meardon at the time of the original zoning plan for Johnson County. And that was in the 1950's. So I have been with the County Zoning for a long long period of time. I really think over 40 years period of time the county has done quite well in so far as the zoning practices are concerned. I have no problem with the city's problems, but as Mr. Mullen said and the others are, these are two entirely two separate. I have a question in my own mind as to why a fringe agreement was even needed in 1983. I think it's a cooperative effort between the two groups. Let me tell you that anytime you reduce a agreement down to writing, you've got to make sure you dot all the I's because if you don't you are going to end up with a great deal of difficulty that you're going to be unhappy about from both the stand point of the county and the city. Thank you. Richard S. Rhodes/ 2014 Rochester Avenue. I guess I stand before you from the perspective of an advocate for the ; i i , , , I, I, Iii , , I I I:, I' Iii ,I " :1' " L' I' , \ l I' " , " I ,,' 'i (i " , 1-1 I' 1\1 I; " "I I I ~ " 1: ~ , I ! , I II, ' F012494 I \',- " ~.-. 111. '., ~ " "'fIf'''. - i. i: ~~ ~; " 'i " , i ~ , , I ~ ! I 1 i P C ~ ~: " I " ~ - "1~---::-~--- ~ "--"......- ....~... - - ~f" .. , " J '" ..:.., 'I' t: .', , ". ""'1",,/ ,ft.,l/.' ,~I .'7' '. ,",' , ,', ',' : ",i..i _" \'.. .' I~. '{I'" " '..' '. I / '1 .',. "- Joint meeting page 29 environmentally rational development of Iowa city and its fringe area. I can neither support or oppose this document because it does very little to address any environmental concarns. There's simply the one statement that it's a desirable objective to protect the environment or something to that effect. But it has no meaning because it's not accompanied by any inventory or any ordinances or proposed ordinances to enforce such an objective. All that aside, I think I can see the rationale behind the down zoning of the areas to the south and the east of iowa city. I think we have an excellent example in front of us with Windsor Ridge where that development was fundamentally forced to request to be annexed and because of that it will be developed to city design standards. I think it's very beneficial from that perspective to have these developments to have these developments come in to the city in that fashion. Mr. Meade or Mr. Duffy made a comment about the amount of farm land within the Iowa city city limits but I feel that was sort of a red herring because it/s not the amount of farm land but the amount of farm land that someone wishes to develop and those areas both in the fringe area and within city limits. If someone wants to maintain the agricultural usage that usage will be maintained, their right to farm on it. So that really doesn't have much bearing on the question before us. I guess I also question, I can't remember his name, but one fellow made a comment about recreational land along the Iowa River in the vicinity of Isaac Walton. It is all well and good but I certainly hope that he doesn't expect my taxes to pay when now his developed recreational lots are flooded out with the next big flood. That is not a very good place to be putting housing of any sort because it is a flood plain and I do hope that the county takes that into consideration when they issue building permits down there. That is all I have to say right now. Thank you very much. Lacina/ Is there anyone else who wishes to comment at this time. Anyone else who wishes to address us before we close the p.h. Brian O'Harra/ I have just one quiCk question and that is when we go into this fringe agreement like Windsor Ridge was annexed in, are the Johnson County residents in advance notified that there is a possibility that they have to abide by the fringe area agreements. For instance now that the two mile limit is extending past the Windsor Ridge now. Were those people made aware of that at the time of annexation. Lacina/ No. O'Harra/ And why, I guess. Why aren/t they. Like when Windsor Ridge was annexed in the county didn/t even send me a card F012494 .", - ....:l -___0_0. u_ 11 I, I" I " 'ii " i, I: Ii " " f I , \ " i 'I:; . , f;l ~. I' :r I II! I r .1;1 , :' I , II I I J II \. ,\ ..-'" ---- - "1-----"'-: --""9\......~ ';1......- , ,I, l' .' '.' ~. ,-' .' J' " ,', " ' I I, LI' ' '(..1 ' .' l.,-,: . " " '"' .. : ~', ~'M I I{ " ~_.', ..~~, . ' ,",' " ,_ / !,..., j i' ---"_'_'_4 Joint meeting page 30 i;. r! , ,< " i , ~ I saying-or the city did not even send me notification that there was a meeting. The county did. Horow/ Excuse me but I believe that Windsor Ridge was in the two mile fringe area and has been. Lacina/ Brian's point is that when the fringe area is extended the people within that extension fall under guidelines. O'Harra/ At what stage, if at all, are people notified that all of a sudden they have to abide by new set of criteria. I think that is really important to address. Lacina/ And at the present time my understanding is that there is no mechanism in place to address that for notification purposes. Connie Mutel/ I live on Sugar Bottom Road north of the fringe area. Is this mic working. Okay. I wanted to speak to Karen Kubby' s question about protection of natural areas by the fringe agreement. I understand that the Fringe Agreement does not do that and isn't able to do that at this time. However the county has in the past expressed it desire to protect natural areas in the county. We have now got a natural area survey that gives us at least a first step in being able to do that. We are also in the last few months have enacted a national biological survey which is going to be hopefully done by the federal government which will probably push us all in that direction. We are part of a very well educated community here and I think a community that is proud not only of the city of Iowa City and of its natural and human features but also of the natural features in the county and the county is not land just for humans. It is for other species as well. So I would ask you to all consider that in your voting on this and in your future actions. Lacina/ Anyone else. The question was if we were voting on it this evening and the answer is no. Charlie- Duffy/ As far as I am concerned I am ready to vote. I am going to vote no. i i i i- 'I Ii ii il ., I' " I " :J. , ,'~ , ' , , I I \ :' ; , "f Lacina/ Is there anyone else that wishes to address us at this time. If not I am probably going to be closing-yes sir, please. Bishop White/ I live just outside area of zoning area A by West Overlook Road and Dubuque Street. I am concerned because of precedent and something might be coming down in the future that might interest us in the area. I would just like to make F012494 i :1 , !: , , I , 'I "'-"" \',' ',' --- \411. ;_1.... - -..-...---- -...,~... ..........,...... ... - ~. ,--.,-- \ f ,,' ,,", ,-' I" J ',.,', ,.' , . " " "1,1' ,'LI ''-I'' lj" , " , . , t \' .. 'J . . ' . ': '..; ~ .', -~.". --. . / () '" ..... ----. ..-..... .--. Joint meeting page 31 some observations very briefly and if this is an agreement between the city and the county and involves policy I was somewhat disturbed that the reasons for existing problems were really not very well articulated even upon request. Secondly, with the downzoning question I do not feel was adequately or forthrightly answered by the people who were in fact spent so much time on it. It was a simple board question I think. It could have probably been answered better. My point is that if it is a policy agreement that I would like to see in a policy agreement the reason for it, the justification for the proposals that are different from the existing agreement very clearly stated that we all can understand and thirdly, I would like to see a list of principles that the county and city agree to as being important in considering whatever might come before them under the agreement. For example, a principle that I think is very important is the notion of the capacity of the land to absorb development. It is a concept. It hasn't been addressed but I would like to see that on this kind of document myself. As a principle that will be considered and where others have mentioned. But I would argue that before a document be worthy of your serious consideration it should contain these types of things. Thank you for your time. Lacina/ Anyone else. Again, I will offer the opportunity. Anybody and I know sometimes people are intimidated to speak. If you wish to drop any notes, comments to us I think that would be appropriate as well if you have something that you think of later, because we want as much input on this as we can get. Nov/ I am sure the city echoes that. Lacina/ Okay, if there is not any other comments from the public and I don't see any at this time, I will close the p.h. And so it is closed and at this point as to our agenda I will now go back to the council and board members and we can address any questions that were raised that you wish to answer or any comments at this time that you wish to do. Throg/ Steve, I think I would like to ask a question. I suppose the staff maybe of the Zoning Board in the county or P/Z Commission and the basic question is if current trends continue do they expect that land on the fringe of Iowa City will be developed residentially at a higher density than that land is currently zoned. More than one or two dwelling units per acre. Devorak/ I am not sure I exactly understood your question, Jim. I couldn't hear very well. Throg/ Basically I am wondering whether the land on the fringe of F012494 I I I , , Ii, I " Ii I!' " Ii , I \! ;: f: I' .I i, \( tIi , i, I I Ii " , , ii , I , , ":. ~ 1IJ//If//If"',.... ...... ---~ ---..., """- ~ ;' ..... --- - -- .............-- .. - -.,~.... -..,. - ~ .... -~. I'" ..... \ , , , ' . ( '., " " '_ ,_ I , I'Ll :1 'l' ',.." . '/ 'l, :1 " , ' 'r ~ ~. ' " '<I,' I " ' , . ' . . ,'.1 \: .:' ~" ,.......' -. "..... .., . / I, '. " 1 !,. Joint meeting page 32 Iowa city is going to be developed in the relatively near future like within the next five to ten years. If so, whether it is likely to be developed at a density greater than one or so dwelling units per acre as the county currently has it zoned. Devorak/ We had a lot of inquiries regarding the northern part of the county and the growth in that area. But because of the current fringe area agreement and because of the code restrictions in that area there hasn't been much activity being gone on right now. We have had a few in the last couple of years. A few meaning 70-80 acres. As far as specifically- currently we have not done a comprehensive plan study showing growth patterns for quite a while. We did do one regarding the Rapid Creek area which was done in about '88 I believe it was or '89. That is when the county chose with the city to amend the fringe area at that time and go with the three acre density. I believe that is why one of the main reasons that we chose to go with the three acre recommendation to these boards, west of Highway 1 also. We are proposing that be the size of the lots, as Monica has explained, anticipating some growth in that area when Prairie du Chien Road is improved. We feel that has been a major problem for development in that area because of the curves and so on. It is in the five year program. And also that we have had a lot of inquiry, again, off of Highway 1 to the west but again that is an area that we couldn't have development. And we did have some development, of course, off of Fox Lane that you are aware of that was about 50-70 acres that went through a every traumatic time but they finally got that developed. So my opinion regarding growth-yes I foresee growth in that area and I believe that if the board goes along with upgrading of the comprehensive plan we will have a better handle on that growth in that area. Throg/ I don't know if you would like to extend on that or not. Nov/ Rick, while you are here. Has any of the growth in the past been clustered as the fringe area agreement is proposing now. Devorak/ Almost everything we have done in the last two years in the north corridor has been clustered. Of any size. One or two lots obviously you can't and flat ground doesn't lend itself to that either. But keeping in tune with the wildlife habitats and the wilderness area that we are promoting to protect we-almost everyone that I can remember, in fact, everyone that I can remember in the last couple of years has been a cluster sUbdivision concept with outlot or out lots blended in with them. I ii \ I II II I: 11 Ii: I: ; ,'! " ,I: " : , !1 'I , 'I i I j , 1 , " It ! II i ,II I I I 1 i i i , Nov/ Thank you. F012494 ,i " ',., .:' -- - .... .L ":".........-.......-,..----...-- ---"'1 ---,.. ~- ~-;.'..... -- ._~ -.....-.----- -Jf' ~ -......-- ,...-.".....,,- -,-----.,.--..... <~-- - ---- ~ ~, , ' , ' , i 'I" 1'."" "4 : lb-t- " ,,' :', , , " ~ 'I ' , ~,:/ I , . \ ,. ,\ ',', ' , ' ,l. \. ,. :' - ..; w' " ~ "_~, ,-' '. I " " : , , :'1 , Joint meeting page 33 Kubby/ Could we get the question answered about more specifically what is not working with the current agreement. I know that some people have said the language is kind of gray but the new one seems to be less specific than the old one and maybe you could talk about that. Devorak/ I will start but then I think I will let possibly one of the members of the city committee talk. On the staff point of view the language-in fact, myself, when I first started I thought it was like a comprehensive plan. Something that you use as a tool to make decisions. But after talking with Pat White and discussing it with him quite a few different times we fond that it was not. It is a binding agreement. That we have to fulfill and have to follow. Through the years different terms became very difficult to understand and we didn't follow them very well so we try to get that built into this one. It looks like we didn't accomplish what our goal was but we felt as though a lot of the environmental issues we didn't put that into the plan. We wanted to have that as a separate ordinance after we get our study done in the county. , , I , : 1,' i' , I I: , , , , !i ,I i' I" !' I (,: i; I: III , I,i Ii " !:l I I J " " Moen/ I think there is a distinction with this agreement vs. the agreement that we are operating under right now and in that I do believe that the proposal has a great deal more specificity and smaller room for interpretation as to what the intention of the agreement is. Whereas the existing agreement, I think, leaves some room for interpretation and ambiguity. And that is where we ran into difficulties between the city and the county. In fringe area 4 in particular language such as agricultural uses encouraged would often have us debating as to what the intent of that meant. Did that mean that it was exclusively to be used for agricultural purposes or could other uses be considered. And on no harm no foul then therefore we could allow something other than agricultural uses. So I think from the very beginning the subcommittee subsequently the commissions were operating for the position that the language had to be a lot clearer and from my perspective I feel that the document is more clearer than the document that we are operating on right now. Kubby/ So it is more general in terms of only looking over three general areas in term of what the rules are. Three different sets of rules vs. eight sets of rules but the language that governs those three areas is more specific. Moen/ Yes, we felt that there was some merit in aggregating these areas based on, as I said originally, based on similarity of the land and also annexation potential. That there, in our minds, that we could reasonably aggregate fringe areas 2, 3, and 4. It was reasonable to aggregate fringe areas 5 & 6. F012494 ;\ -- _ 11_ \',J " "'fIt"". ------ ~ I , , i ~ I ....,~-: -~--~ ..-'........- ...... ... -~-. .,~~ -"..--. ... -.. , , ' ,,', '- -t r ' " 1 " ..' , . . ,,'~'. '. ; .. ,'/ /' ,LI "'-I "", " , , ..',' :, ~-', ~!:'.. ". ..., .' / /...'\ 1 i , Joint meeting page 34 But it may not have been reasonable to aggregate 4 & 5 for example. So there was a every conscientious effort to aggregate them according to specific characteristics and similari ties. Terry/ There has been a lot of addressing tonight of the environmental issues while there should be. Our Zoning commission has instructed John to work up a new proposal for an ordinance change, which is still in the infancy stage, addressing some of the things that we are discussion tonight as far as the environment sensitive areas and so that this is how it is going to be handled. Not necessarily in this document but in a general county zoning ordinance change. Lacina/ Other comments from the board or council. Baker/ steve, I was wondering if can get clarification from one of the speakers, Mr. Scott. Tom got up to speak twice and there seemed to be a contradiction the second time that he spoke and I want to get some clarification on that. It is a friendly question, Tom. The first time you got up to speak you said you had been on the commission 12 years and in your experience I think you said you had never seen development in the county that was required to live up to city design standards. Is that correct. Scotti I think I said to my knowledge we had not imposed city design standards within that one mile extraterritorial limit in my time. Baker/ We had not imposed it. The second time you got up to speak the question was what happens if we don't down zone-that the city's alternative was to impose city design standards. Scotti To require that we probably follow that particular aspect that the present fringe area agreement in areas 5 & 6. Baker/ Okay, so I guess my question is if we haven't done it in the past why are you assuming we could or would do it in the future. Scotti All depends upon the political decision makers and you all are sitting up there. It would be a recommendation from the P/Z Commission, as you well know Larry, and whether or not it would be followed it would be sheer speculation on my part. Baker/ In your experience have you recommended that in the past and that recommendation has not been followed. Scotti No. No. I think the only real serious consideration to a F012494 .....'.,1. ',' ,.,.. I ---..... --- - " I, ~ III , I ! I! , I I" " I, :i !; " 'I " Ii I;" I, " II , .(! , i., u ~f i, i , : '.' :i ,,:",.........-""If!!IJIf""" ...... --",.,~. ~-.... 'QIJ;...-"WII." -- ~-.- ........--.------~~ .... ---..---~-... ... ~ y. -~-y-' _.___---__T ~ ~ l ". ,; ILl', t~f' ,,' f;-t' " ",' "," , " "'I' " , ' ' < .: 'I ~ " ' ,". --' " " / , >1 '.!.. -...--------. Joint meeting page 35 development in that area, in that one mile area, in either 5 or 6 was the Windsor Ridge Subdivision. And they looked at developing in the county at city design standards because of the high potential for annexation. They decided against it and instead of developing in the county with those parameters they sought and received annexation. Baker/ Let me see if I can just simplify the position here. The purpose of the downzoning was to discourage development in those areas close to the city until such a time that the city could incorporate them at the standards that we would like to see. ",. Kubby/ So that is in there now. We just haven't been following. Moen/ That is correct. Meade/ That is in the platting process, isn't it Monica. Kubby/ The city has kind of veto power over. If we say no to the plat the county can't overturn that. Moen/ That is correct. Lacina/ You have not been following the city design standards for proposed subdivisions within that one mile area. Moen/ No, we have not. Lacina/ I would beg to differ on that point on the property south of Windsor Ridge which was-an offer was made upon that property and the discussion took place about applying city standards and I believe they were stringent enough that the purchaser walked and then bought Windsor Ridge. ,,' :1 , , , , I iI ~ 1 I 'I; 'I ii II ii, j. I! Ij ,: " \ " , il '~ " Ii I' Iii ,; .'! '.I " Ii .i " I!. , 'j' f;'- I I I Ii " Scotti Yes. Baker/ So what we need to do-that is the goal so if we can't do it by downzoning, find someway to accomplish the same thing. ScottI If that is the intent of the political bodies, yes. Kubby/ So Monica, the agreement we are working under now does state that we could impose city design standards in the platting process for areas- Moen/ That discretion doesn't exist there. It says that the city urban design standards shall apply to development a mile east and a mile south. , ,', " , F012494 " ii " I , '1 " ;',1 -. Rl .1 - - . (. ' "~ /.. L/: ti :I!" ,.,'., : . i :'.,w", :,. . ',-:t > 'l p '." . ".'.', / i ''1 ,(, " Joint meeting page 36 Meade/ That is correct. Moen/ I don't know that particular issue but when we have entertained or formal applications haven't been made yet but we have advised people that these more rigorous standards apply and we are talking abut everything. Not just streets. Not just curbs and gutters. But also sanitary sewer systems and water systems that could be retrofit with a municipal system in the future. And as a consequence people have chosen not to proceed. Nov/ We are saying here that we have not allowed development within this one mile area that was not city standards. Have we bent the rules. Have there been developments that were not developed to city standards. Moen/ I am thinking. Is the Fox Hollow Subdivision outside one mile. The Fox Hollow is a subdivision that comes to mind that I think was just on the edge of the one mile area. That subdivision hasn't occurred there. But that is one subdivision where there were concessions that were made to allow that. It was approved by the city and the county without full city development standards. , I I ; Meade/ And weren't there some others, too, Monica. Wasn't the Woods property nearby. Of course that was done years ago. It is right next to Fox. Moen/ I am not familiar with that one. Fox Hollow is what comes to mind immediately. Meade/ There are other areas like that. Lacina/ Are there any other comments from the boards. Throg/ steve, it is difficult for me to respond to what I have heard because we are all talking and what I hear is expressions. They are hard to follow. I mean you have had trouble following what each person has said and you probably ha trouble following what I say. So I am trying to sort it all out. To make sense out of it. I am struggling with that. That tells me something important. But let me move beyond that. What I am trying to do is see really what is at stake here and the way I see it in mind incoherence at the moment is the central the issue is who will benefit and who will lose or who might lose for the city and county's agreement about developing land on the fringe. Land is going to get developed. Somebody is going to benefit and somebody is going to benefit from whatever agreement exists. So the question is is that agreement that we have now adequate or do we need a , ' " i,' ~ . 1, I Ii :i 'f , II IF , I' 11 , i ! :\ : , - Ii Ii i " L: " Ii' , L J 1:1 I " , j II 1'1 i I , I I I I J I ::' \. ' , l \ . : -:, " I ' - L/' ':' ,-' .. '"., .' , ',,f , ,L I ' ',I , " " . , " " '-,,", I~ ",' . . ~ . \ . . . . . r~." ..,' ,_0::. . , ' , '. . / " 1 .~. Joint meeting page 37 new agreement. All right. My sense is the existing agreement is probably isn't adequate. We probably need a new one but that means that we have to work something out between the city and the county. All right. And whatever we do somebody is going 0 benefit and somebody might lose. I don't know if that says anything but that is the way that I hear this situation. NOV/ It is also a common denominator of compromise that nobody is completely happy. Just another way of repeating what Jim said. We will come u with a very reasonable compromise. We are all reasonable people and it is likely that there will not be a situation where absolutely everybody is absolutely happy. Kubby/ Well, it seems like we have a choices of saying no to this like Charlie wants to do which means we default back to the old one but we are finding that there are problems with that so I feel uncomfortable with the status quo and in any case there are people in the county who there are going to be decisions made by the city that would affect them without their being able to elect us. So that is not going to change. I guess I will just continue to throw tea. And so it seems like we need to find if people aren't satisfied with the new agreement that maybe we should each entity go back and talk about what is is that we absolutely need from an agreement. What are those principles that we want to live by in this two mile area and then come back again or give that input to the committee to say what further adjustments could be made to rectify our concerns that we have. Things that would make us vote no for this one and things that we don't like about the old one to create another option. Because I don't want to go back to the old one I don't think. I don't like the choices of saying yes or no. I don't think that is going to serve anyone in this room which is the whole community very well. That I think we need to go back and discuss this some more. Give our input to the committee and see what jiggles out. Terry/ I think when we had our p.h. at the county level, just our Zoning Commission, Mr. Throgmorton said that he felt that it wasn't a p.h. it was an informative session and sometimes that happens in a p.h. But I guess I would like to try to keep politics out of this thing right now and think as a community. I am being very redundant, I know, but this is the way I think. It is probably why I will never be a politician. So I would like personally and I think that the rest of the Commission feels this way. We would like you to give us some direction like Karen addressed. Tell us what you want without benefit of I don't like this-I do like this. I think that is defeating the purpose of the p.h. at this time and place. And I am speaking to of turn I apologize. But I want for our subcommittee some direction from you folks. Both bodies so ! 'I !: Ii I:i " ii II, , Ii' r: ,; L! , ,- !i ,I ;1 II !I " 1'; 1'1 'I I I il f i , ' 1 1 i i I I' \ I I , , i , 1 i - , , F012494 ,i ..L,~. . ~-"""'''''''I!!fl'''"F'' - ~...., ~- 9\-.....~-;'.....-- -- "'P'.........-----_-~~.... ~ ~ .... . ' . , . . , , . r .' , ,':/ I ,.IL/' fl 2:t, ,".,,", . " ' . " '.' ,I.,. TI . .~v . , ", ~, -',.- . '.. - - . '-~ . .', ' . / / /'\.1 '~, Joint meeting page 38 that we can salvage something from this and don't overlook the fact of the extending the fringe area line and stuff like this. If you don't like it let's hear it now because next time I would like to see a much more happy audience in a p.h. with a new fringe area agreement that we can draw up for you. I would like to see it come back to us with some direction. Lacina/ First Naomi then Sue. Nov/ It has always been the compromise situation. I just can't believe that we won't come up with something. I think that we will just have to schedule it for further discussion at a city meeting and the county will schedule it for further discussion through the county meeting. I just don't think we are going to come up with that tonight. Terry/ You can't or shouldn't. Horow/ I think Mr. White made a very cogent point in terms of listing the principles that the city and the county want to help the citizens understand as to why this sort of thing goes on. From the city's point of view I certainly feel as a steward of the city for the future it is incumbent upon me to think long term planning of the area around the city limits right now. And I think certainly those folk who live close to the city limits want to be sure that I am thinking about where the placement of another fire station, for instance, will be. If any of the volunteer fire departments are no longer in effect and the Iowa city Fire Department has to respond to your fires. I think that is incumbent upon us to work with the county to figure out where the development will be and how that development is going to both affect the city and how the city can then respond out to that development. To not think of the long range development is imprudent as far as I am concerned. So this is why I am very concerned about, as Naomi said, compromising in this document, but also recognizing that not everybody is going to be happy with this. But you will at least understand by stating the principles of what the city is concerned about right now and anticipates being concerned about in the future. That that be stated in any document. I think we can certainly send that back to our two bodies. Meade/ Just to make a few comments in general as being a public official. I think it is imperative that everyone remember that we represent certain groups. The city represents the city of Iowa city in this. The supervisors have a little bit different role. We have to be concerned about both because we represent the constituents of both. I want to say that I feel that the wheels of government grind slowly. You are seeing F012494 ,',: " .. . ,...-.--........ \ 1 , I I ' i I Ii i dill ii I il r I:' " ji . t 1:'1 :,' i 'I"~,: il; II i L I I ,'I: , , , j i I I , ; i I i , I , I I i I , , ii "'It"". - \ , - "1----"" -::.. --~-- . ;: ...., . ..' _ ,'I I LI L ,', Lt, ,,",' , : . ,', ' 'I' r ,- , ,{ , ,'. . ' : - .. ~ ; '.' ','~. \' "', " " '. ". ' , '. / \, !. Joint meeting page 39 that process right now. They do grind slowly. But in the process that is good because it fights for the rights of democracy. We have heard at two p.h.s what the people want and this helps us then in making a fair decision for everyone. From what I have heard from these two p.h.s I am not afraid to make the comment that I am not happy at all and would not approve this plan in its present from. I have questions and concerns about each of the three areas. And they are each in everyone different in the three areas and will be happy to get into that. I don't think we should wash that all tonight. My point in speaking this way is that yes, we are making progress. Yes, we have a long ways to go. And yes, we need to go back to our own respective P!Z and visit with them first so that they understand, each of them, what we are concerned about so that we can then pick up the process and move forwards. Because we do need-there is going to be development. We need planned, organized, intelligent development. I have a lot of faith that we are going to get there. , ! ~ i I, ~ , ! I j' II ii i h' " I!' !, 1: " i , ,I :i I( ! 'i 'i ii' i I I; i, I r " , l: " "ii ,i I .:i ! 1:1 " j I I I,' " Ii Throg/ I echo that point a little bit. I hear Pat saying that we need to hear what the people want and surely we have heard what some people want. But we have not heard what the people of Iowa City and Johnson County want because we are more multiple than the people who are here right now. We haven't heard anything from people in neighborhood associations inside the city. We haven't heard anything from people who will be living in the land that might be annexed at rural design standards. If we don't have solid fringe area agreement then we might end up annexing land that is developed at rural standards and they will end up without adequate services, without adequate infrastructure for where they live. Those people are not here right now. And so I am wondering who else is not here. We got to make sure that they are brought into the process, too. Duffy/When I said that I would vote no if we voted tonight I certainly would. That did not mean that this plan can't be altered or plans in the future. I have been to four meetings concerning this plus the fact that Rick will testify that I have spent a lot of time in our zoning office. I know that I have taken up your time and I have talked to Monica personally to try to get something that both the city and the county and the citizens a good proposal and the right thing to do. When I said that maybe we should vote tonight these people don't know what we are going to do. And I personally think we should move it yes or no. But that does not mean that we can't come u with a different agreement or certain things that should be added or taken out. Several months ago I saw two major things and we discussed them tonight. One is the two F012494 I \. , il '-- ,', " -....-,.-.- . , ' ' '.,,' :1/' '1.:..1' t /' 'I:;: ' '",' . .~. ~ '.,....,:". . 1~~' :J. " .' " .~'... ..'0. . .' . . -' " Joint meeting page 40 mile limit and I think Monica has kind of made it plain that it would take advantage, the city would, of the two mile limit. And automatically extend two miles. I don't know if that is right. You don't have to really do that. That can be changed. So that is one thing I would like to see changed. Now, when you down zone property that has been zoned residential for 33 years I have a real problem with that. I think a problem to protect the rural people from law suits and we do get sued. There are some that we have to deal with. But I always for cooperating with the city and the city is our part of the county but this time I think it is maybe your turn because I don't see that even. I think it is too far over on the city side. So I am calling a spade a spade. Meade/ I think what happens is that we will stay with the original agreement at this point. Lehman/ Well, I think that if I were the audience tonight it would be kind of apparent to me that this group is probably going to approve what you just heard the way we hear it. I think it is important that we recognize which are real problems and which are perceived problems. And use the word downzone and immediately everybody takes offense. And I think perhaps justifiably so. But that one term has made this whole agreement so unpalatable that I don't think it has a prayer. Lacina/ And concentration on certain areas if there is an intent to annex an area over the next 20-30 years that might carry heavier weight as oppose to some area which might fall in for a long period of time. Anyone else who wished to comment. Joe- , i 1 Ii i ! i , , !.i ~ Ii I, II: I! i II I, I" " I, ;i 'i\ . , .. " i;" " II i " i Ii! I, I i jl II I, ,f " Bolkcum/ I will just make a couple of general obvious points. Jim made a point earlier. Johnson County is a growing county. fastest in the state of Iowa. We are going to continue to grow in the county and in the city and these kind of meetings are important to trying to figure out nail down at a public forum how folks want that to happen. And it is by its nature a political process. And I think that is a good thing because I don't want these decisions made at the administrative level. I want people to have a shot at us about these decisions and about zoning decisions, about planning decisions because we are the people that are elected by you. The people that are appointed on these commission are not elected. So I don't think it is necessarily bad when we talk about a political process. I think, in this case, it is a very positive and healthy thing. Part of this agreement, I think, of the two committees and they have put in a lot of hours on this, is trying to strike a balance between what is good for our county, including Iowa city and including Johnson County. In F012494 I: i I I I I I. I I , i 1 I ! I , I I , i : . I' ;i " 'II/IlIff"''''' ----- --""'~.. -...--~ ~-'...... -- -~~ -........------- ~ ..... --.....- -- -. ...-........... -\~-.. ,-- -" --....- ~~- ( " 'I I '>1...1' L'I'" "f~" " :'" ',' . ."' I - l .., . . '. - " . e' \ :. . , "~I ~ ", . '." , ,.... ' " 1 I', , "-.- Joint meeting page 41 the process of doing that, however, individuals that live in the fringe area have corne tonight and explain their particular personal problem and its impact on them personally. I think we need to try to account for those things. But as we try to strike a policy position we are looking at all of the constituents that are affected and including those that have particular problems. In terms of the downzoning I think that obviously pretty clear that down zoning is probably off the table. I think that it is probably the most significant point of concern. I think it is dead. I don't think it is going to go anywhere. That is my sense about it. And I think it is good that we are talking. I think we need a new fringe area agreement. I am not sure what all the elements of that agreement should be. But it has to be something that we can work together jointly on because people are going to continue to come to our county and want to enjoy what we have here and we need to be prepared to take that on and this fringe area agreement is a substantial part of that. Pigott/ I just add to that two quick things. That we talked about the p.h. process and how important that is. But the document itself is just as important. Bishop White tonight mentioned explaining in the document the need for-explaining why we are changing. I think that sort of idea-when we go back to our individual boards and the city and discuss this and talk about principles. Not only do we go back and talk about that ut how to make it a more citizen friendly document and secondly, once we come back to the staff and once the staff comes back to us with maybe a revised proposal that we take that proposal back to the citizens as we have done in this process here and, as Jim has mentioned, through the neighborhood associations, through people that we haven't heard tonight. That is it. Kubby/ I have a request from the county as an individual council member and that is if the rest of the members of the board agree with Charlie that you feel that it is imbalanced and that the city has more advantage with our current agreement or the new agreement I guess I would like to hear more specifically what you mean by that and what you think a more fair balance would be. That would help me in my deliberations and making comments to the subcommittee and or respective zoning commissions. Lacina/ Do you want to hear those now or do you wish that we would forward those. KUbby/ No, I can't hear them. Meade/ Karen, it would take me too long to get to answer that question because as I said earlier, there is something in each F012494 ."....... I i I ; I i, II! Ii " " " !! ~ II II ij' Ii' [: 'I " , i , , (, " k I'i, 'i I I J 'I -i , \.1 ""If"". - - "'~-;- -~.....~ -.... - 1IiII:. ..... r . ",' " ".:~ I"~ .,.:,,', . ,:," . :~ I ,Lf LI ',J I , . , , ' . : ',';., "-', . . ,~., ~, V '. .' . . " / 1/\ / 1 " , '---~-.....- Joint meeting page 42 one of the zonings. In the A, B, and C that I have a problem with and in each case it is different. And I do want to share it with you. I talked briefly to Sue but this is just part of the process. We aren't behind the times or what have you. We are just going through what is necessary to get things done. John Oakes/ I live on 4584 Rapid Creek Road. And I have enjoyed this hearing immensely because the board of supervisors has known that the fringe area people have existed for quite some number of years. But I am afraid that the city council has never known that we exist. And that I think that we have some rights that have been taken away from us and that is one of the things that the county has a disadvantage because if they do what we don't like they are doing. But if you people on the council take our rights away from us or whatever you do we have no recourse. That is one reason the county has a disadvantage. But I am very glad that the city now CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 94-23 SIDE 2 the last few years. Thank you. Tucker/ Have you or do you consider taking Coralville into your consideration as part of this overall plan. Shouldn't you do so. Lacina/ The question was have we considered taking Coralville into the discussion of the fringe area and we have fringe area agreements with the other cities, the ten cities that exist within Johnson county. I think except University Heights because it is surrounded but within the other area of Hills, Lone Tree, swisher, Solon, OXford, Tiffin, and the rest. We do have fringe area agreements. This one has really been the only one that we have had some difficulties with but I think we are on the process of ironing those out. But we do have agreements, yes. Okay. Any other comments that anyone wishes to make. Charlie. Duffy/ In our county P/Z committee we have five volunteers, unpaid. We are all paid up here by the way. On the city there are seven and so I appreciate the work of our county P/Z and the city because they have spent considerable time on this. Kubby/ Some of you are paid better than others. Duffy/ You know, I couldn't argue with that. Throg/ It was either Pat or Steve that said that there are many things that the county sees that are wrong with the proposed agreement. F012494 "''''''''''''. lIo.n. l' f I , , 1,' ~ !i II ,I , I I, If I I! 1- , , " I ': . I' ,I fl < . 1 I' i il [, I I, ~ " Ii I, II ~J . , " I; I , , r \, I' L. I I !i' , , . ........... ":.-~ ,I , , , , , " .....". - --"-'--'''1 ~. .~.......... ",-,'...... -- ~ -- .......--...-----..------ I.. '",. '/ ,.' ,L,' ' ,'LH f:l . '''''' :.. .. " " \t 'V ,I ., : ',_. \ ',' t J~ _...". '. . "1 .1. " .......n.__~ Joint meeting page 43 Meade/ I said that there were problems in my mind. Throg/ I guess that I would just like to say that there are plenty of problems in my mind with the proposed agreement and I am sure that that is true on the part of other city council members as well. But from a different point of view and I don't know that is is so balanced in favor of the county or against the county. From my point of view it is not balanced in favor of the city. I assure you. So- Meade/ I think, as Chuck Mullen said, the city has quid pro quo on this one. I think he made a correct statement when he said that in this particular agreement we are tending to give everything away on this particular agreement. We didn't have a bad agreement to begin with. Now we are giving more land. That is my feeling. Lacina/ First, I would like to thank you for the courteous way that you treated us. Second of all, your comments are very valuable. We appreciate those because we try to make an informed decision. But unless we know all of the facts, if we only know half of the facts we can't make a good decision. So, thank you for coming out on a bad night. Your comments were very valuable. Now, there will be more p.h.s because what I am hearing is that there is going to be a substantive change and we have a lot of discussion so keep informed. Please keep giving us feedback. I think for directions to staff we have got a good starting point. What I would like to see happen is each respective representatives set out at some time in a work session and we will discuss these things. There are a number of things, for example, in the downzoning. The concepts need to be dealt with. The time period for some of the annexations. The extension and notification of the public in the even that the fringe area is extended. These are all very important points that we need to address and I think government does do what it does best sometimes. It works out for the best which is move slowly and carefully. And I think we will be moving forward as long as we are making progress on all sides that is what we need to do. So, again, I would like to thank everyone for coming. We will go back to our respective boards and discuss the things you brought to us. Adjourn: 8:55 PM F012494 ..M..... '. -~-_..- p-, ! II ) i il i :r : 1 i .Ii,' k 1 .1 I: .' I 1:\ L~ I 1. ! I.; \ !' I' II; j II, 'I , " '.1- Iii" I , i' I