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