MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MARCH 10, 2008
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 2:00 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan. Planning and Zoning Committee members present were: Al Carr, Terry Dahms, Maynard Hebl, and Bob Saunders. Land Use Plan Committee members present were: Pat Cancilla, Ellen Kapp, Larry Wilson, Jim Dane, and Glenn Siders.
East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) Land Use Planner Chad Sands said that in January 2006 they started the review of the adopted Land Use Plan to determine if it was doing what it was intended to do. As part of the review they evaluated the past growth patterns before and after the plan was adopted, recent subdivision approval, farmstead splits, and rezoning. Based on the review they made some recommendations to help improve the plan. Sands said that the Land Use Plan is accomplishing some of the stated goals, but they wanted to make it even better. Sands said that in the spring of 2006 they held five town meeting and two charettes to gather public input. He noted that the data compiled out of those meetings as well as updated census data will be included in the appendix of the Plan. Sands said that in the next step of the updating process the Planning and Zoning Commission will need to hold at least one public hearing and then make a recommendation to the Board. The Board will need to have at least one public hearing before adopting the Land Use Plan by resolution.
Sands said that the overall policies and the three overall goals of the original Land Use Plan will essentially remain the same. He noted that the three goals are the proactive protection of the environment, the preservation of agricultural land and farming operations, and minimizing conflicts between incompatible land uses. He noted that the adopted Land Use Plan's goals, policies, and strategies are scattered in different sections of the Plan. In order to eliminate confusion and searching time, all goals, policies and strategies were brought together into one easy-to-use section. Sands said that the Land Use Plan Committee has defined specific Land Use Policies and general Land Use Policies. The specific Land Use Policies deal with very specific geographical areas of the County that were deemed important during the planning process, like agricultural land, rural land, the North Corridor, unincorporated villages, fringe areas outside the communities, transportation corridors, cultural overlay areas, and the cities within the County. He noted that the proposed updated Plan contains very detailed land use policies with regard to any development proposed within each of those specific areas. Sands explained that the general Land Use Goals and Policies are the criteria that each land use proposal has to follow regardless of where it is located in the County. Those categories for general land use are environment, agriculture and rural, minimizing conflict, transportation, residential, economic development, parks and open space.
Sands noted that most of the changes made to the existing policies were minor. One recommendation from the Committee was that the Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission meet yearly to review the Land Use Plan and determine if it is working as intended. Sands explained that the Plan does not have to be updated yearly, but the review would ensure an easier and faster update process when the time does come to update the Plan.
Sands said that the Committee added unincorporated villages to the Specific Areas Policies and created village plans. For Environmental Policies, the Committee recommends adding GIS mapping of the natural features to work in conjunction with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The Committee felt it was necessary to reevaluate the current Phase 1 and Phase 2 concepts of growth within the North Corridor. Sands said that no specific policies were recommended. Sands added that the implementation schedule was drafted showing timelines for items contained in the Plan as well as the responsible parties for implementation.
Sands thanked the Land Use Plan Update Committee for the time and hard work that was put into this. Sands also thanked Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore, and Planning and Zoning Intern Hillary Copeland for their assistance throughout the process. Planning and Zoning Commission members introduced were Al Carr, Terry Dahms, Maynard Hebl, and Bob Conrad. Land Use Plan Update Committee Members introduced were Pat Cancilla, Ellen Kapp, Larry Wilson, Jim Dane, and Glenn Siders. R. Sullivan said that the Board appreciates the time, the extensive work, and the research that they had all put into it.
R. Sullivan said that he expected to see more specificity within the Plan. Sands said the Land Use Plan should be a general guide for the County and that getting too specific could limit their actions. Land Use Plan Committee Vice-Chair Glenn Siders said that Land Use Plan Committee Chair Joe Holland was out of town and apologized for not being present. Siders mentioned that the Committee intentionally avoided the discussion of certain specific things because making such decisions stands in the hands of the policy makers within the County.
Neuzil said that when talking about development, the Plan refers to the term "contiguous" and asked for clarification. Siders responded that the Committee did not define any terms. He noted that the Committee tried to be specific and definitive in the description of goals and strategies. Siders added that the interpretation of the term contiguous needs to be determined through a dialogue between the Board and Planning and Zoning. Neuzil asked if the unincorporated villages and their boundaries were discussed by the Committee. Sands said that there was consensus within the Committee to look and discuss the unincorporated villages and they were very specific in identifying needs. Moore noted that normally there are Fringe Area Agreements generated to identify a two-mile growth area of a city where development is allowed prior to annexation. Moore explained that the growth area doesn't have to physically touch the city boundaries. Moore said that Rezoning Requests receive a fairly favorable review if they are within the growth area.
Sands recommended that the Board meet with the legal staff to discuss fairness within the County. Sands said that there was a strong consensus among the Land Use Plan Update Committee members that what is fair in one part of the County needs to be fair for the rest of the County as well. Sands said that the Land Use Plan was created for the entire County and that fairness needs to be addressed.
Neuzil asked if the issue of economic development was incorporated into the discussion. Sands said that on page 22 of the Plan there is a very specific economic development section that lists the County's goals and strategies. Neuzil said that there has been discussion of having a separate Economic Development Plan to provide staff with more direction on rural economic development.
Harney was disappointed that the growth areas were not addressed. Harney said that the Committee could have looked at the growth areas at the county level without detailing specific areas. Siders said the Committee looked at the county wide growth areas and focused on the North Corridor. Siders recommended that the County look at the phasing for the North Corridor and try to identify other areas viable for growth. Stutsman asked why the Committee decided to reevaluate the phasing. Siders said the Committee wanted to determine if the phasing boundary lines are correct or if they needed to be adjusted. However, he added that doing this takes considerably more effort and people as well as public input.
R. Sullivan was pleased to see that the Committee gave detailed consideration to the goals of the Plan. R. Sullivan said that sometimes it is important to move toward a goal rather than following a policy. He added that some requests may be against the policy, but following a goal can lead to cutting better deals in terms of land use planning. Meyers stated that the goals strongly emphasize density or lack of it. Meyers said that the Plan encourages efficient urban development patterns, lessening congestion in the streets and cities, preventing overcrowding of land, and avoiding undue concentration of population. Meyers does not recall specific conversations about density. Siders said the Committee had a short discussion about density. He noted that determining the appropriate density for an area or use should be a decision made by policy makers. Siders said the Committee had tried to look at the big picture. Sands said that the goals on page three of the Plan came straight from the State Code from the statute of the Comprehensive Plan. Sands said the goals were defining what the County has the authority to plan for.
Meyers noted that the discussion of unincorporated villages on page 13 contains a line that says preferred zoning classes for residential development would be those with the highest density. He noted that the statement on page 13 is in conflict with the goal of reducing density stated on page 3 of the Plan. Sands said the issue of unincorporated villages is that there are areas swelled of lots. He recommended that the County focus on growth in those areas because the services like water and sewer are already available. Sands reiterated that page 3 of the Plan lists goals taken from the State Code.
Siders said there was consensus within the Committee that the County needs to evaluate the process of farmstead splits on a regular basis. Dane said that the current farmstead split regulations have been in use for nine years and are a compromise that seems to be working. He noted that tweaking the language will create havoc. Dane said that the Committee felt comfortable with not making any changes. Harney asked if the Committee discussed smaller self-supporting farms. Dane said they had quite a bit of discussion on the subject and had invited community members to offer input. Dane said that self-supporting farms are a special case, but noted that the rules need to be equal across the county. He said that there is a special situation in the southwest part of the county and recommended that it be addressed by the County. Siders added that the biggest concern had to do with the legalities of the situation. Siders recommended creating a task force to focus solely on that issue. Siders noted that exempting people with unique living styles from certain regulations and not doing it throughout the rest of the county might not be a good decision. Harney clarified that he was not referring to just the Amish farms, but also to the small farms that raise produce and sell at farmers markets which are self-sustaining. Siders said the Committee did not address that specific issue. Siders stated that they talked about different forms of agricultural uses but he believes that Harney should talk with the staff about the appropriate zoning.
Dane added that the Committee eliminated the use of the 65 Corn Suitability Rating (CSR) as a value to determine what is good versus poor agricultural land. Dane said that it is unfair to the landowner that has less than 65 CSR to be penalized for owning land that is not the same quality as their neighbors. Dane stated that farm operations need to be preserved and encouraged. Harney asked if the Land Use Plan is a guide policy. Siders said that the Plan is a significant guide that the County uses. He noted that the Plan does not have the strength of the Comprehensive Plan or a Zoning Ordinance. Sands stated that the plans act like a guide. Sands added that ordinances are law and help implement the plan. Sands said that a plan should be general in nature. Siders said that a number of things in the original Land Use Plan were recommendations. He gave the example of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, which began as a recommendation and ended up as an ordinance, and therefore law. Siders stated that most of the recommendations in the Plan have been accomplished by the County in the past six or seven years. Siders said they could remove some of that stuff and start inserting new things.
R. Sullivan stated that the Zoning staff has been emphasizing the idea of shared wells and waste water systems in major subdivisions. R. Sullivan asked if there are differences between Planning and Zoning and Public Health on the matter. Moore responded that shared wells and waste water systems are policies that the Planning and Zoning staff is pursuing in any development request. He noted that sometimes that conflicts with the Health Department requirements. Moore said that the Health Department has regulations for permitting individual on-site waste water systems. He noted that plans for systems greater than 1,500 gallons a day goes outside their purview and has to go to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Public Health Environmental Health Coordinator James Lacina stated that Public Health has encouraged shared systems where appropriate conditions exist. He said that this is determined on a case by case basis. He added that it is difficult to locate such systems and meet the guidelines because of required setbacks or neighbor disputes. R. Sullivan asked if Public Health wanted to encourage more shared systems and if they are concerned with the implementation. Lacina said that shared systems are not appropriate for everyone. Lacina noted that Public Health does not deal with policy as much as the facts of the regulations.
Lacina said that on page 21, point four of the Plan states to consider the interconnection of water wells and community waste water systems for contiguous developments. Lacina asked for clarifications on the intent of that passage. He added that there would be some concerns with the implementation of that if it refers to combining systems that are already in place. He explained that when installed water wells are classified as private or public, combining such developments may change the classification from private to public. He said that each system is constructed differently and has different sampling requirements. Lacina noted that the DNR does not approve of such changes because they bypass their regulations. He noted that waste water systems are built to serve a certain number of homes and are typically not overbuilt. Harney said that the connection to another system was put into place for emergency circumstances to allow people to temporarily hook up to another system and have water or sewage facilities.
Siders said that this will not fit every situation, but the Committee wanted to encourage shared water and waste systems. He added that the Committee wanted to encourage connectivity of developments with regards to trails, streets, water, and waste water systems. Siders said that if there is the opportunity to connect systems for awhile or implement a cross use that is still within Public Health and DNR regulations, it should be encouraged. Siders noted that it was the general feeling of the Committee that shared systems would be a benefit, not a detriment. Siders said the Committee is not advocating retrofitting, but as new developments come along, such systems should be encouraged. Dvorak said this would also apply to the growth rate of the municipalities. He noted that all the municipalities that he worked with had encouraged a system that could be hooked up to very easily. Dvorak said they talked in great length about the interconnectivity of the developments and it was outlined in the Plan.
Lacina said that strategy five on page 21 to minimize the number of waste water systems and wells in the County was too general. He noted that Public Health was the department that would visit these sites on a case by case basis and make the determinations needed. He added that each situation has different specifications and it would be too complicated to share that duty. Lacina said that they should use the term public instead of centralized to be consistent with DNR and County regulations. He explained that public would mean a DNR permitted waste water and well. He added that shared private refers to two or three lots and is based on the number of bedrooms proposed in the development. Neuzil said that Swisher and Hills are communities that would need some form of centralized water system and the County could encourage them to look at connectivity on this issue. Lacina said that Public Health loses its jurisdiction when the projects involve that many people. He noted that Public Health could offer assistance, but cannot force anyone to take any more steps. Lacina said that projects that fall out of their jurisdiction are turned over to the DNR.
Neuzil said that there are a lot of reasons why creeks and waterways are becoming polluted. One of those is the fact that there are a lot of houses that are near creeks and rivers. He asked if it had ever been addressed how close to the creek they were allowing homes to be. Siders said that is addressed through the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. He said the Committee was not the appropriate body to determine how many feet from a creek a home should be located. He noted that there are buffering guidelines in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and they felt it was the appropriate mechanism to ensure the County is getting what they wanted.
Lacina said that Public Health hopes to work on a GIS map layer to include all the permanent systems, the permit holders, and the sensitive areas. He noted that there is a time of transfer legislation awaiting the Governor's signature, which would require Public Health to do an inspection of every property that changes hands. Lacina said that if approved, the transfer legislation would give them a chance to upgrade a lot of the old systems. Neuzil asked if when someone sells their house the septic system would need to be inspected. Lacina said the legislation would apply to every home being sold. Neuzil said that many states already have in place similar procedures, and added that this would start to address the issue of leaks. Siders said that one important thing that needs to be done is to create an inventory of the sensitive areas for the entire county. Siders added that this was one of those things always put off because of money issues. He said that if Johnson County wanted to make its ordinances work it needed a database with inventory of wooded areas, streams and all other natural features.
Carr said that in the six years he was on the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission he never had to operate without a Land Use Plan. He said that there were times when the Commission disagreed with the Plan but as a whole the Plan was a useful guide. Carr said that the Plan helped the Commission deal with the general public complaints. He said the Committee aimed to refine and not to redefine the Land Use Plan. He reiterated that the Plan helped him when he sat before the public and had to explain why they were doing things the way they were.
Wilson said that the Sensitive Areas Plan is reacting. He noted that the County only reacts when things occur. He said that a lot more good could be done by planning things out ahead of time and looking at connectivity. Wilson said that if there were two sensitive areas with a non-sensitive area in between the County should look at connections. Wilson said green infrastructure is akin to road infrastructure in that the systems and priorities of the streams and rivers are similar to those of roads. Wilson said that they ought to be looking at the connectivity of areas to protect water quality and wildlife corridors. He reiterated the platting of the resources is important to prevent development from hindering the natural view of a scenic road or a ridge. Stutsman asked why that was not included in the implementation schedule. Sands said it was included under the Developing Natural Resources Policy on page 25 of the Plan. Sands said that the Committee wanted to encourage the mapping of natural area streams, wooded ridgelines, and wetlands as defined in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Stutsman said that mapping and developing the inventory are policy decisions for the Board to decide and provide the resources to get it done, if so determined.
Going back to the centralized waste water, Moore said that Zoning staff would have conflicts with both Public Health and the public in the future. Moore said that doing just one, three, and five-acre lots is sprawl, and would not reduce their carbon footprint and vehicle trips, and it would not preserve agricultural ground. He said that people yell and threaten to sue them because Planning and Zoning tells them to do a shared system while the Health Department informs them that shared systems are not required. R. Sullivan said that Public Health is evaluating each system before deciding if someone could do a shared or individual system. He noted that Moore was saying that Zoning preferred having shared systems. Moore understood that the Health Department's role was to determine if a DNR system could be installed, and if not Planning and Zoning needed to be informed so that they could see if an individual on-site system would work or if they needed to find another alternative. Moore said that he always went by the State Code that asks to preserve the availability of agricultural land. He added that doing one, three, and five-acre lots would not preserve anything.
Lacina said that on-site systems are legal. He noted that there were situations when Public Health encouraged combined systems. He said that it would be better to evaluate each individual scenario rather than forcing the situation. Moore said that when there are people within 1,000 feet who will not sign the waiver the DNR automatically declines the request. He said that Zoning staff had been trying to work with the DNR and even with Senator Joe Bolkcom on the matter. He added that from the beginning Public Health responded that they do not have to do combined systems. Moore said that it was an admirable goal and they should encourage as many people as possible to get shared well water systems. Harney said that the 1,000 foot rule locked at least two waivers and that the only alternative that could be used was installing single septic systems.
Moore said that he and Dvorak have expressed interest in working with Bolkcom and the DNR about the situation. R. Sullivan said a situation could arise when an applicant who wanted to really install a shared system would file an appeal. Moore said it required up-front money to do a shared waste water system because of the big sizes of subdivisions. Moore noted that the final plat can not be approved until all the infrastructure is in place or an escrow account is set up. Lacina said that the new policy may force neighbors to accept shared systems installed within 1,000 feet. Dvorak said that if developers really want to do it they will go to the ends to get it done. R. Sullivan asked if the problem occurred on Curtis Bridge Road. Dvorak confirmed that and added that Shueyville had the same problem. R. Sullivan said it was interesting how the DNR ruled on the issue. Lacina said that Public Health does not put in a lot of time and effort into investigating waivers.
Siders said that it was in the County's best interest to cluster the wells and waste water into one system instead of having them dispersed into 50 different systems. Siders said one of his frustrations as a committee member was the huge gap between Public Health and the County and the applicants, citizens, and business-owners who are affected due to the lack of cooperation.
Stutsman said that she is ready to move the document forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission so that they will have public hearings and receive citizen input. Johnson County Community Health Division Manager Raymond Stelzer said his department had a very productive meeting with Dvorak and Moore and had no problems supporting the Zoning actions. He said that if people ask the right question his department has to give them the appropriate answer as according to the State statute, and that they were not trying to impede anyone's plans.
Cancilla said that it was a pleasure working with the Committee members. He endorsed what had been said, and added that when it came to farmstead splits they occurred all over the county except for areas designated by the Board and Committee as sites for future development. Cancilla said that in some instances farmstead splits were outnumbering real zoning for economic reasons. He reiterated that the Board should look at where the farmstead splits are occurring, because they are not occurring where there are no roads and therefore no fire or police protection can be offered in those areas.
In regard to the North Corridor, Cancilla said that Phase I and II involves an enormous part of the county; an area bigger than Iowa City and Coralville combined. He said that discussions of putting in septic tanks and roads did not equal planning. He noted that the Board should allow development in areas where they can provide infrastructure. Cancilla said that there may be as many as 150 miles of roads to be built in the North Corridor, and noted that the Johnson County Secondary Roads Department could only build two miles of road per year and it would take 75 years to put all the wanted roads in the area. Cancilla said the County needs to develop a Scenic Road Ordinance to preserve the scenic beauty of the county. He said the League of Women Voters of Iowa has been considering recommending the issue of transportation in the North Corridor to JCCOG. Cancilla said that despite the high prices of gasoline people continue to build way out in the county and would not be able to keep commuting for long. Cancilla said that the issues for the North Corridor needed to be brought together in one Plan because not having a unified plan was a recipe for environmental problems and retrofitted infrastructure costs.
Harney asked Sands how long it would take him to put together a document for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sands said he was working on updating all of the census data and that would take a week or two to finish. R. Sullivan asked Sands when he formally planned to take the document before the Commission. Sands planned on presenting to the Commission in April, 2008. Sands said the Commission would be required to have at least one public hearing, and if they were comfortable with the plan they would make a recommendation to the Board, which could be presented to the Board in May at the earliest. Harney said that they had a recommendation from Siders to put together a different committee to review the North Corridor. Stutsman said that the Plan needed to be adopted first. Siders concurred and said that once the Plan was adopted the Board could put together a committee to discuss the North Corridor.
Adjourned at 3:27 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2008
By Kaitlyn Dodds, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on May 5, 2008 at 10:00 a.m.