MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SEPTEMBER 18, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Work Session: Review of Proposed Land Use Plan (continued from Part 1)
Agriculture Protection
Stutsman went on to an added Agriculture Protection Goal- Discourage non-farm development in agricultural areas. Jordahl said for him this is just the beginning of what the Board needs to do here. He said the County's current Comprehensive Plan is centered around this idea and the idea is throughout. Jordahl said it involves every aspect of talking about development and the conflicts between incompatible uses and development patterns the County wants to encourage in rural areas and the development of the towns. He cited the North Corridor Plan where it talks about the conflict or relationship between non-farm development and agricultural areas. Jordahl said they could go on and talk about the protection of agriculture in much greater detail here.
Duffy asked what does it mean by agricultural areas. Jordahl said they are delineated on the map they've been looking at as the 4 regions outside of the North Corridor. Duffy said he wouldn't agree there, because there's a difference in farmland and this looks like that most of the development would be in the North Corridor. He cited Cosgrove as an example where development and housing should be. Duffy said this looks like its a restriction and there is not enough said about the type of soil. He thought most of the people in this County would agree with using the word prime, but it appeared to him, instead of protecting land, they were really restricting it, because in some cases it wouldn't hurt to build. Jordahl said for him what agricultural area is referring to is the idea of a conflict between land uses; it isn't a question of whether a piece of ground is prime or non-prime. He referred to a statement from the 1982 North Corridor Plan, which he said elaborated very well that there are legitimate agricultural uses for non-prime land. Jordahl said the center of the concern in the existing Comprehensive Plan is avoiding the conflict between incompatible land uses. He said, to take every piece of non-prime or sub-65-CSR land in the County and say, well this is a legitimate place to do development, because it's not prime, is to ignore completely the central motivating idea of our current comprehensive plan; that needs to be brought forward.
Duffy said he has said several times, just because you don't have the best of agricultural land, what we call marginal land, you shouldn't have a house on every acre of that. He said there are places where building some kinds of structures should not be restricted. Bolkcom asked Jordahl if what he basically was saying is that he doesn't think they've got enough in the proposed plan that says they'll be tough on protecting agricultural land and non-farm development. Jordahl said what they have before them he understood to be an update of the Comprehensive Plan, so that it would be something that the Supervisors would be behind and something that would be a good basis for formulating the ordinances that would allow the Board to really consistently implement policy in the County. He said they instead got a complete new plan with a whole different philosophy in the middle of it. Jordahl the current plan is about agricultural protection and the new document seems to be more about how they can develop. He said those are just such a very fundamental difference the Board should figure out how to address that question.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said he could agree with Jordahl. He cited a recent case, when an individual was selling 74 acres that was always pasture. It never had been farmed. A developer came in and bought it for $2,800 an acre. Dvorak said the farmers were shut out, because they could not afford to pay $2,800 for pasture land. Dvorak would support a statement in this section regarding compatibility. In the example he had cited, the area was totally surrounded by agricultural uses; there weren't any residential developments in the area. Dvorak said in this particular case there was no compatibility; it was totally incompatible. Stutsman said she supports what Jordahl is saying too, because taking too much marginal land out of farming enterprises then limits area farmers. She noted putting a residential area in is going to have a direct impact on what the neighboring farmers are going to be able to do with their land.
Dvorak said, if there is development in an area and expansion of the development, he doesn't think it has the same impact as just coming right in the middle of farms. Stutsman said if they had had something like that in the Comprehensive Plan, then a developer would know that this is not a good speculative piece of property. Dvorak said a developer would know up front a project is not supported, because there is no additional residential or industrial commercial nearby, it's strictly agricultural. Moore said our current Comprehensive Plan won out. He said anybody can come and ask you to rezone or develop anywhere. Moore said the unfortunate individual in Dvorak's example spent about $2,800 an acre and was turned down on his zoning. Moore believed the Board may turn it down and the individual is not going to be able to do anything with it but farm it. He said our current Comprehensive Plan, which was cited in turning him down, said that was a rural area and agricultural uses were the preferred use; so that worked.
Duffy said they were getting into something here that years ago was a real hot issue, telling farmers what to raise on their land; like certain land is suited for pasture, for hay, for cattle, for corn or for beans. He said it just costs more to produce a crop year after year on marginal land. Bolkcom said the other issue here is the one related to the economics of cost. He said one of the reasons why the current plan says they don't want to encourage a lot of non-farm development in farming areas is because the County can't afford to do that. Moore cited the costs of building the roads. Bolkcom said the County can't financially provide the services that people want when they move out 20 miles away. He thought that underpins not only the compatibility question, in forcing land prices up, but the argument discussed in the plan about limited services versus expanded services, which favored limited services because of the cost to all taxpayers.
Lacina said there are also areas which will be zoned agricultural that when viewed in the terms of what's in the best interest of the County may be better off if that ground is not agricultural. He said the way this is written right now, Strebs' development park, The Paddocks affordable housing, and Wolf's property for affordable housing would never been allowed. Lacina said in the event that they do have to site a fairgrounds, that might not be allowed. He gave the example of placing a trucking company along an interstate interchange as being a more appropriate location than 7 miles away and having to use County roads to get to that intersection. Lacina said, while he understands the concept of preserving ag land, he also thinks there needs to be some provision for balancing the total needs of the County against that. He said the developer previously mentioned took a calculated risk and lost, but at the same time when they start talking about values, he's not interested in depressing housing values, ag land values. Lacina said that's a dangerous area, he thinks they need to stay out of, but somehow establishing a need based for the total county. He said if there is an area around an intersection that needs to be commercial instead of ag they need a pressure valve to get to that. Dvorak said, when they get to the economic part and what they're using for a land use map for industrial recommendations, he thinks that may help identify some of that. Stutsman said the language says discourage, it doesn't say prohibit. She said the Streb example was close to town.
Lacina suggested added another thing under agricultural protection strategies, where it talks about use of neighborhood parcels as being exceptions; also if the County put infrastructure and non-ag support base or reword that somehow. So that if there is an area, maybe parkland or sensitive areas, that sometime in the future will develop, it gives the Board a way of looking at the area and determining what's best for the County. Stutsman asked where he wanted to put that. Lacina said probably after use of neighborhood parcels. Jordahl said he thought they were going to wait with the strategies until after they had looked at the goals. Dvorak asked if they could put that as a goal or maybe it's in the wrong place. He said the incompatibility of agricultural and other uses, he was hoping the Board could put under goals, but maybe that's not the appropriate place. Jordahl said, yes, he thinks the compatibility thing should definitely be a bullet under agricultural protection and it should be an extensive textual reference as well.
Jordahl wanted to address the idea of Streb's industrial park mentioned by Lacina. He mentioned under the general development policies recommended in the current Comprehensive Plan, it states that it should be a general policy of Johnson County that future growth adjacent to municipalities, not in but adjacent to, shall be in an orderly manner and in the interest of the individual municipality and all County residents. The Strebs' project would, he thought, be promoted under that policy, because it is orderly. Lacina said the Farm Service Plant east of it isn't, because it's not contiguous with any of the rest of that property. He said they do have pieces of property along the railways, which aren't contiguous, that would be appropriate for commercial/industrial versus ag. Lacina said maybe he gave a bad example with Streb; he was trying to give an example, but the concept is there will be areas not contiguous where they don't want a (if they're going to talk about sustainability) meat processing plant. He said you're not going to want that against your city.
Jordahl said he'd be open to hearing a statement like the County may wish to pursue a designation of areas where industrial development may be appropriate, and more appropriate than in or adjacent to a city. He said it's possible, given waste treatment and so forth might be dealt with. Lacina said that wouldn't fit here and Jordahl agreed. Stutsman said she wouldn't have as much of a problem with industry next to farm as she would residential, because it's residential that's going to curtail a farming operation not another industry. Lacina said to that aspect of residential, if it says it's non-farm, it's out. The point he thought was valid, if you've got a warehouse or a factory, there's not going to be a lot of conflict with ag versus the residential; he thought that's a very important point. Bolkcom said they state in this policy somewhere else under economic development that they're not going to encourage industrial development, heavy industrial in unincorporated areas.
Jordahl said in the new plan, they have a recommendation that towns like Cosgrove be allowed to develop in much the same way that the incorporated municipalities were allowed to develop under the current Comprehensive Plan. He thinks that's a severable question. Jordahl wished to talk about residential development around municipal areas defined broadly that everything outside the North Corridor or outside of the incorporated municipalities would be considered agricultural area, but areas adjacent to those municipalities would be covered in the same way it is in the current plan. Whether that definition of areas where it would be adjacent to municipalities would be expanded to include unincorporated municipalities, that do not offer the city services discussed in the current plan, or not is a separate question that they may discuss differently, but in terms of where development can occur Jordahl thinks this agricultural area statement can be seen in the context of what happens around municipalities.
Lacina said he's not going to support the idea of an anhydrous facility next to a municipality. He said there are going to be situations where it's not going to be appropriate to set everything around that municipality. Lacina cited a number of examples he felt were inappropriate next to a municipality: some of the ag industries, propane facilities, bulk tanks, tank farms (like on 218 North), anhydrous facilities (one they turned down near to Morse), trucking firms, facilities such as the Louis Rich plant near West Liberty (not in Johnson County), and anything that has to do with potentially dangerous substances, such as chemical distribution places. He wasn't sure how they would build that into the document. Jordahl said he thought Lacina raises a decent point and he could agree to change non-farm to residential- Discourage residential development in agricultural areas. He suggested they could talk separately under the economic and industrial development section about exactly what Lacina was talking about, the possibility of siting these things in rural areas. Lacina said that's a valid point that maybe would solve the problem, but wondered if they were overlooking something if they did that.
Stutsman asked, just say- discourage residential development in ag areas; is that what they're proposing. Bolkcom thought non-farm is fine and they could talk about economic development under economic development. He said he doesn't want to put in exceptions under protecting agriculture. Jordahl said, no, he was just saying change the word non-farm to residential. Lacina said, that would allow a hog buying station to establish in a rural area to buy hogs, but it would not allow that house. Chase suggested, rather than limiting themselves by saying residential or non-farm, using the language- inappropriate development; that way the decision makers can use their discretion. Jordahl said, he is not happy with that, because it allows people to say that limited residential development in agricultural areas is appropriate and he wants to specifically state that is not. Lacina said he agrees with Jordahl; it is too arbitrary to decide what is appropriate or not. He said residential does come closer to what they want. Bolkcom said he thinks non-farm makes the most sense. Duffy disagreed with using non-farm.
Bolkcom said he thinks they're trying to protect agricultural ground. Jordahl asked Bolkcom about Lacina's point. Bolkcom said he doesn't think it necessarily says we're not going to develop any agricultural ground. He said they were discouraging non-farm use of ag ground; it doesn't say 100% of time or every application. Stutsman agreed; that's what discourage does say. Duffy suggested- Discourage non-farm development in some agricultural areas. Jordahl said he would say- all agricultural areas- in response to that. Duffy said there are people farming dangerously steep slopes; some have been killed. He pointed out there is a lot of land that was zoned residential in 1960. He doesn't think there's that much of a conflict between farmers and neighbors. He noted the cities have about 10,000 acres of agricultural land. Jordahl said, if it's zoned residential, that's entirely different question.
Duffy said he was for some leeway. Bolkcom said he is for keeping- Discourage non-farm. Duffy said he is not for it. Stutsman said she was for leaving it the way it is. Duffy asked why she doesn't want- some agricultural areas- there. Stutsman said it's too ambiguous. Duffy disagreed. Jordahl said he wants it to be very unambiguous and firm. He said when it says discourage, that potentially leaves room for someone to come in and say this ground has never been appropriate for agriculture; it's separated from the ground that could conceivably be used for agricultural purposes; that this is an area where it would not be a problem; and then a Board of Supervisors could say, yes, that would make sense. Jordahl said they don't need to forbid that, but they'll just have a general policy of discouraging it. Stutsman said she thinks they can go back to the previous example. She said there is no doubt that piece of property could never be put into row crops; it would be an abomination if it was ever put into row crops, but it did have value as pasture ground and had been used as such accordingly. Stutsman said using Duffy's suggestion of some of that marginal land, then they'd have to zone that, because it is marginal land. Duffy said, no, they wouldn't, because he said some agricultural land.
Dvorak said he still would like to see that bullet in there that's in the other plan that talks about the incompatibilities. Stutsman and Lacina agreed. Stutsman asked what is the appropriate wording for that. Dvorak suggested just taking it from the other plan. Jordahl said it exists in a number of places, but there is sort of a preamble to it that says the primary concern which evolved is the impact of non-farm development on agricultural operations. It goes on to say there are conflicts between farm and non-farm activities and direct impacts, such as different expectations for rural service systems. He said the whole plan is cast in those terms and asked if Dvorak is suggesting one bullet. Dvorak asked if they can consolidate that. Bolkcom suggested it may take a page. Dvorak suggested putting a bullet there and then working on the next one.
Lacina suggested- That uses must be compatible with the surrounding ag use. He asked if that would that get the gist of it and then they could refine it later. Lacina said uses must be compatible with the surrounding ag use, because this is in the ag section. Stutsman agreed, that will give them a start. Bolkcom said, in general, he thinks if they're going to discourage, it's kind of a negative statement; he thinks they should say where they do encourage. Dvorak agreed. Bolkcom said, coming out of the current plan there is under general development policies, a section he'd like to add- It shall be the general policy of Johnson County to encourage and promote a majority of anticipated future population growth within established municipalities of Johnson County. Duffy said that is cutting off all building in Johnson County. Bolkcom added- and their fringe. Bolkcom said the general policy here: one goal is to promote protection of agriculture; the second goal is the general policy of the County is to encourage and promote the majority of anticipated future population growth within the established municipalities of Johnson County- and he would add to that- and their fringe areas. Lacina asked if they eliminate the North Corridor. Jordahl said no.
Bolkcom said under the residential goals in the proposed plan, where it should be- Foster orderly and efficient residential development within the North Corridor. He said if they're going to discourage growth in ag areas, they should positively say where they want to encourage it. Jordahl said it sort of is the first bullet under residential development goals, which however includes that new notion of the unincorporated municipalities. Duffy said in other words what they're saying then is if somebody wants to go build a house or two on highly erodible land, say no, but in Tiffin, which is better land, encourage building in the fringe areas. He didn't think anybody is going to agree with that. Bolkcom said he doesn't think they would be saying no to people for a lot here or a lot there, but there are places out in the country and timber alongside a road where it's rough ground; they've seen dozens of these where the Board's policies say no growth in this part of the County, but they go out, look at it, it seems appropriate, and they say yes. Lacina asked if this would stop that.
Bolkcom said this says discourage non-farm, they're not saying prohibit non-farm. He said it gives the Board flexibility, but in general it says if somebody wants to do a 30-lot subdivision out in an agricultural neighborhood, this policy would direct them, you're going to have a real hard time getting that passed. However, Bolkcom said, where somebody wants to do one or 2 lots out somewhere where it's appropriate ground to do it, the Board would have the flexibility to say this may be something that works. Lacina said this needs to be embellished quite a bit. He said they need to clarify that they've got that flexibility to look at those building sites where the house isn't there, but has been a building site in the past, or it's got a CSR of 40, and so forth. He asked how do they rewrite it, so that it doesn't say all growth must go in incorporated areas. Jordahl said it says majority- To encourage and promote the majority of anticipated future population growth within the established municipalities of Johnson County. Bolkcom said he would guess the majority of growth is happening in the County now. Lacina asked how to define it. Bolkcom said you could count number of houses, number of people. Lacina asked if every 3rd one would go in the rural area. Jordahl said the policy says encourage, not enumerate.
Bolkcom said what underpins this is economics; not all developments pay their way. He said the policy goes on to talk about municipal governments being inherently better suited to administer services, urban-type services, and in most cases the necessary service system is already in place. Bolkcom said, not everybody, but some people want to live out in the country. He said they've got something like 1,000 lots right now available. Bolkcom said they're going to continue to re-zone; they had approved 88 lots the past week in platting.. He doesn't see the Board as just turning a spigot and that suddenly stops; there's plenty of opportunities for people to live in the country. Bolkcom said, if the Board is going to be serious about a policy that says they're going to provide limited services out in unincorporated areas, and probably including the North Corridor, they have to have a policy that says where they do encourage growth. Duffy said he doesn't agree. Duffy cited the land that was rezoned from ag to residential in 1960 and questioned whether farmers in the North Corridor should have to stop farming and build houses.
Bolkcom said the County's policy directs growth to the North Corridor now; it's a policy the entire Board voted on and supported. Bolkcom supported what's in the current plan that encourages growth in town and next to town first. Duffy said Bolkcom is talking about private property. Duffy said he can't tell people that their land is zoned residential, sell your site, sell your cows because they're bawling, then start building houses. Jordahl said that's what he's talking about too. Bolkcom agreed. Jordahl said that's what the current plan is talking about; you don't want to put residential development next to where people are going to complain about the noise and smells of farming. Jordahl said no one's saying they have to sell it. He said he would be for a bullet in the plan that says let's protect existing agricultural operations on residentially zoned land. Duffy said that's the reason why the Board put in the Right To Farm Ordinance; if people don't like some hogs on a cell feeder banging on the lids. He doesn't see a lot of controversy and said you have to give farmers credit on handling their affairs. Duffy said farm after farm is zoned residential and still farmed; he doesn't want to put the pressure on those people.
Jordahl said he strongly supports that and would encourage Duffy to offer a bullet in that regard. He suggested something like- emphasize in all cases that existing farming operations have the right to continue the full range of farming operations; as subsequent residential developments should be put on notice in writing, just as the Right To Farm Ordinance in the current zoning ordinance states. Stutsman said she'd like to put a bullet to that effect in too. Bolkcom supported that. Stutsman said it would say that they recognize that and support their right to farm. Jordahl cited a case where ground was zoned residential and a person had an existing agricultural operation that they wanted to continue; the neighbors were complaining, but he was there first. He said he'd love to have something like that in the plan. Duffy said they should not say that the land that's been rezoned and even some of the lots that have been platted, that they have enough land that's been rezoned, and start building here. Duffy said he doesn't like Bolkcom's suggested statement. Jordahl said that it's to permit development. He cited the example, if two adjacent farms were zoned residential, one wanted to continue agricultural operations and the other wanted to develop that ground; and it's already zoned residential. Jordahl said the one would be able to develop residentially, but those people moving into those houses would have to be put on notice, as per the bullet, that existing farming operation was there first and has prior rights to do farming; if you're moving in here, you're moving in next to a farm and let's not hear complaints about farming operations.
Lacina said they can put it in there, but it's powerless. Duffy said the County has that ordinance already. Bolkcom said they already have the Right To Farm Ordinance, which is probably equally powerless. Duffy said he's not so sure; it hasn't been tested. Bolkcom said for those who are not going to read our Right To Farm Ordinance, the statement is at least advisory to people. Stutsman asked if Chase could draft something spelling out exactly what they want. Chase asked if the proposed new bullet would say- that encourages the continuation of farming on lands currently zoned as residential. Jordahl said, no; rather- to preserve the right of farmers to continue agricultural operations, even though their land may be zoned residential. Lacina asked why don't they go back in the County's ordinance and look at the Right To Farm Ordinance. Moore asked what would prevent them from not doing it. He said that really sounds like a redundant thing. Moore said, if he owns that land, he doesn't care if it's zoned residential or commercial or what; if he's farming, nothing can stop him from farming. Lacina agreed.
Stutsman said she wanted to convey a message to people who read the Land Use Plan that they value ag and even though land is zoned residential, those people have recognized rights. Basically the Board is not going to pay any attention if people complain about a hog feeder clanking or a tractor running at 10:00 or whatever. Moore asked if that's a goal. Stutsman said it would. Moore asked how do they accomplish that goal. Jordahl said he thinks they go beyond that to an implementation strategy that would be like the zoning ordinance which states that people moving in to these areas will have some notice put in some legal document associated with their building permit where they will receive this paragraph. Moore suggested a subdivider's agreement. Jordahl said a subdivider's agreement would be all right. He said the paragraph will say what the ordinance says.
Stutsman cited examples she had read about where some counties are giving brochures to people who are planning to move into the country and saying OK, this is what you can expect to move into the country: your roads aren't going to be hard surface, you're not going to have garbage pick up, and just enumerating all these things. She said that might be the strategy, that they develop something like a brochure. Jordahl agreed and suggested requiring people to sign for it when they pick up their building permit. Chase asked to clarify the language on the new goal- Preserve rights of farmers to continue farming operations in areas zoned as residential. Jordahl replied- even though their land may have been zoned residential. Bolkcom said- is zoned residential. Jordahl said- that the land is zoned residential. He said he would say- continue farming operations. Jordahl said he means to imply there that the use was in existence before the land was zoned residential.
Chase said the language they have is- preserve rights of farmers to continue farming operations in areas zoned as residential. Stutsman said that sounds good. Bolkcom suggested- zoned residential. Duffy said our zoning ordinance, the Right To Farm, written in about 1982, is still going to be in this plan. Lacina said that's going to be in violation; if the one neighbor had a residential property and the other one decided to build a house on their residential property, the first party by Code is not going to be able to build their hog confinement set-up across the road, because of distance. He asked if the two aren't somewhat incompatible in some areas. Jordahl said there's a lot of incompatibility. Lacina said my concern is that the Board doesn't write something which is in violation with DNR regulations or the Code. Jordahl said the Board had something like that come up with regard to hunting rights recently where they asked that houses be offset from the property line a certain distance in order to allow hunting to continue on the adjacent property; it was a question of DNR regulations and not having the houses too close. Lacina said this would be an opposite; once the house is constructed, whatever regulation they try to build in there, property owner are going to be prohibited from putting that hog confinement set-up in there. Stutsman suggested putting this goal in, then think about it, and then come back to it.
Bolkcom restated his proposed policy statement- that it be general policy of Johnson County to encourage and promote the majority of anticipated future population growth within established municipalities and their fringe areas of Johnson County. Duffy noted that around Altoona and Des Moines there's some of the best land in the world and asked if building should occur on some of that type of land. Bolkcom cited the Streb example. He asked where do you want to have an industrial park. Bolkcom said they were out of space at the current site, there's a couple decent roads there, there is a developer interested in doing it, and it's pretty good farm ground He said he doesn't know what the CSR on it is. Lacina said it's high. Bolkcom said it's pretty nice ground; the problem is it's contiguous to Iowa City. He said it unfortunately makes sense to put this one use that's going to create jobs and you're taking it out of agricultural production forever. Bolkcom said it's trying to balance those two things. He said the unfortunate fact is that cities grow and when they grow out sometimes good ag ground is in the way, so it gets taken out of production. Duffy said he doesn't agree that everybody should live in the cities or tell people where they live, and grab more land to annex.
Moore read from the residential development goals, the first one which was changed as follows: it had said- Foster orderly and efficient residential growth; and they added- around the incorporated and unincorporated municipalities. He said that's what was changed the last time. Duffy disagreed with the language. Lacina said, if they could include the North Corridor, he wouldn't be quite so concerned. He cited some of the best ag land laying to the southeast of Iowa City and near North Liberty with expansion going on high CSR ground. Lacina said if you locate somebody up on the Frees property, where you've got trees and clay and a nice setting for houses, he thinks you're going to have less of an impact than if you force them into Iowa City, causing their expansion into 40 acre flat fields with no trees.
Jordahl said there will be a mitigation in that the densities around Iowa City will be significantly higher and there will be the sewering of those homes and city water and so forth. He said, though there will be an impact on certain acres of contiguous farm ground, the number of acres affected should be significantly smaller than if they were spread across the rural area. Jordahl said, in addition, you'd have the conflict between uses occurring as these houses were scattered throughout the rural areas. Lacina noted that's your food production, on your good soil. Jordahl said they may have to admit that Iowa City's going to grow, regardless of whatever policies they might articulate here. Jordahl said he doesn't think that saying they want to protect existing agricultural operations and prime farm ground from the expansion of residential development across the county is in conflict at all with the idea of development occurring around cities, because it's going to compact that development around cities rather than scattering it, where it's creating problems all over the place.
Lacina supported what the language put in earlier, encouraging development in the villages and towns in the fringe areas, and leaving this one out. Stutsman asked which one he was talking about under residential. Lacina said at the last meeting when they talked about residential; the one discussed was a better fit. Lacina asked if the language was- Foster orderly and efficient residential growth around the incorporated and unincorporated municipalities. Duffy said no way. Bolkcom said there's no such thing as unincorporated municipalities. Lacina gave Morse as an example. Bolkcom disagree with the language. He said municipal governments, out of the current plan, are inherently better suited to administrate our services; unincorporated areas do not provide municipal services. Bolkcom said they don't have mayors, city councils, stores, sewers, and gas stations. Moore said they could plan for all that, that's the village concept. He said it offers an option to not spread out and destroy all the farm land. Moore said they wouldn't just let it go in the unincorporated towns without planning.
Bolkcom asked if anybody had come to the County from Morse, Sutliff, or Frytown, from those communities, asking to get more organized; that they want to become incorporated and provide services. Moore said no one said that they wanted to. Lacina said they're proposing not forcing everybody into Coralville, Iowa City, and North Liberty. Bolkcom said they have Lone Tree, Swisher, Shueyville, Solon, and Tiffin; all have interest to grow and they also have huge challenges. He said Lone Tree, Swisher, and North Liberty need expanded or new sewer plants at great expense. Bolkcom said the implication is that suddenly they're going to develop in Frytown or Sutliff and somehow they're going to have public services, as in water and sewer. He said the municipalities, that are organized, are struggling to do it and he doesn't know why we'd want to add another 8 struggling areas to the county. Lacina said under Bolkcom's theory, if they dump this additional growth onto these towns, they're going to break them.
Jordahl said Mike Singer previously talked about grant opportunities and Moore now is talking about going in and helping the unincorporated villages do something about this. Jordahl suggested they could re-focus that discussion on the existing incorporated municipalities and suggest that they will provide assistance to make it possible for them to follow the implementation strategy suggested in the current plan, which says in the interest of coordinated development, land outside of municipal boundaries should be considered as a rural agricultural area; changes to urban uses should be accomplished under municipal jurisdiction and areas proposed for urban development should be annexed to the municipality prior to development. He said this kind of assistance the County might be able to offer through grant writing, through informing people about options, to coordinating, to planning, through the fringe area agreements, for example. Lacina said the municipalities have got their own grant writers; the County doesn't get into municipalities.
Bolkcom asked if they know whether these unincorporated towns want to double or triple in size and have they even talked to the people that live in them. He said they are talking about a policy saying they're going to resettle these areas and they could find out there's some dissatisfaction with that. Duffy disagreed. Duffy said Bolkcom mentioned Lone Tree; some of the best land in the world is around Lone Tree. He wanted to know if they were going to encourage people to live in the fringe area. Duffy said he doesn't think they should encourage that. Stutsman said she supports encouraging, fostering growth around these unincorporated towns for the reason that it gives people another option if they want to move into the country, rather than taking an acreage out of a chunk of a field somewhere. She said there are some people that aren't really attracted to an organized community. Bolkcom said he doesn't think it discourages them from doing that, but he doesn't think it should be their policy to do it. He said if somebody comes in with an application, to do two or three houses in Morse or next to Morse, it makes sense, but not a policy to say they are going to redevelop these areas that over a long period of time have come and gone. Stutsman said she doesn't see them going out and promoting people to do this. She just wants it to be an option.
Dvorak agreed with Stutsman; the language is not promoting, nothing like that. He said it says- foster orderly and efficient residential growth; it's not saying they're encouraging that. Bolkcom said our current plan discourages it. He said our proposed plan by putting it in is going to encourage it. Bolkcom said what it amounts to is really no different than having a subdivision next to another subdivision out in the middle of the country. He said there's no services, no store, no gas, no sewer, and no water. Bolkcom said it's limited services versus expanded services. Lacina said it depends on what you define as services, because you may have a small village that has a mechanic and one of the neighbors with a snow blower and that's the services that they feel are relevant to their need. He said they may not need the gas station if they have one close somewhere. Stutsman said, thinking of Windham, the gas station and the tavern, that's all the services they want. Lacina said if they did need it, somebody would build it. Dvorak said he lives in the country in a development. It costs him only $70 every six months for natural gas, water, and sewer. His taxes are less by about one third for the quality of home that he has than they would be in Iowa City. Bolkcom said, in reference to gasoline, there's all sorts of energy issues here. Dvorak agreed, but was saying his costs to live out there are less in the rural area of the county than if he lived in the city.
Moore said these goals came from the public meetings. He said these are concerned with, as the rankings show what was important to the public, preserving ag ground and environmentally sensitive ground, but they weren't against allowing some development. This is the way they thought it could be done, that they don't go out and chop up all the farm land. Bolkcom said he didn't see anywhere where people said the County should redevelop unincorporated areas. He said he didn't hear that at any of the visioning meetings. Duffy mentioned Windham, with 2 or 3 stores. Bolkcom said nobody's talking about no development, this idea of no development versus everything goes. He said he thinks they're somewhere in between.
Lacina said instead of unincorporated municipality, would the word be that they plug in- village. Jordahl said he likes that. Chase said- Rural villages, residential clusters or nodes; he has a bunch of notes and question marks next to them, because he's not exactly sure what the language would be. Bolkcom said he thinks they can allow growth in unincorporated areas without having it be a stated policy. Lacina said unincorporated development would probably be encompassing or subdivision. Stutsman said she thinks it should be in there to be a guideline, a direction. Bolkcom said it's unsustainable. He said it's no different than a subdivision out in the middle of the country, next to another subdivision. Moore said when they put the proposed plan together, they knew the public didn't want to chop up the farm land, they knew they had infrastructure concerns, yet they still wanted to allow some limited growth out in the County. Moore said they wanted people to have a choice, so they came up with the idea of using the villages that they're already there; they have the one thing that they do provide, roads, available for them. Duffy said they've got more than that. Moore said they can make connections to that.
Jordahl suggested the idea that they separate the concept of the incorporated municipalities and these villages into 2 separate bullets, because the word foster, he disagrees with Dvorak, does mean encourage. Jordahl said- Foster orderly and efficient residential growth around the incorporated municipalities- is one bullet; and then something more like- Consider allowing limited growth in and around unincorporated villages- as a separate bullet. He said then they would have more of a restrictive- consider- or something like that, rather than- foster. Jordahl said Bolkcom's point was similar to the point made by Duffy, about asking farmer's to develop their RS ground; they're asking these villages to accommodate growth, but haven't had the villages saying let us grow. Duffy said, no, that could use the wording- encourage. He said, they do have good water services and septic tanks. Duffy is for using the word encourage, but he's going to look at the kind of land it is.
Jordahl said he was suggesting 2 bullets: the first one to say- Foster orderly and efficient residential growth around the incorporated municipalities; and then not necessarily the 2nd one, it could be something like the 5th, another one saying- Consider allowing limited growth in unincorporated villages; or- allowing growth in villages. He said if that is too many negative words, then say- consider growth in rural villages; it would be more positive. Stutsman said- Consider growth. Lacina said just put them together. Jordahl said encourage is a very different thing than consider. Bolkcom said if you're buying into this idea, which he thinks is a really bad idea, page 54 outlines in a lot of detail regarding what they're talking about. He said the goal should follow if you agree with all on that page, because it lays it out where very specifically. Jordahl said this is a problem with the format of our considering this document, that these goals really are summarizing the text to a large extent and they're talking about the goals in a vacuum.
Stutsman asked what's the problem with Future Land Use- Unincorporated Rural Villages. Jordahl said it states specifically by encouraging higher density development in these rural villages and that phrase itself would need clarification; if that means apartments. Bolkcom said lots of 20,000 square feet, he believes as per the Health Department regulations, require public sewer systems. He asked if it envisioned that the County is getting into the sewer business. Dvorak said the developer, if he wanted to build on those lots, would build the wastewater system; the user pays. Bolkcom said they've been allowing growth around the unincorporated towns without having language that suggests that they do it. He doesn't see from a service standpoint any difference between 15 houses going in at Cosgrove or at Frytown or 15 houses going in on a hard surface road anywhere else in unincorporated Johnson County. Duffy said there is. Bolkcom said they still have septic systems, they still have private wells, they still have to drive to everything they need; just like a subdivision. Duffy said you wouldn't have to have a private drive.
Stutsman said maybe what they should say is that they recognize people wanting to live in the villages and would support development in that area, not to encourage it, but it needs to be recognized in this plan. Bolkcom said- or limited development. Stutsman agreed. Duffy said, no, he's not for limited development. Bolkcom asked how many developers have put in shared septic systems. Stutsman said they can put in ordinances. Bolkcom said it's going to be a tough one. Moore said they need to. Bolkcom said it's expensive. Stutsman agreed, but said if somebody wants to develop, then this is the consequence. Moore said they should pay the cost. Moore said otherwise move to the fringe area or in the city. Lacina said Modern Manor and another development are examples of treatment facilities where the County hasn't put in one cent and they are sustainable, they are doing quite well. Duffy agreed.
Dvorak said one thing scares him in the language promoting the development within the cities. In the last few months people have come in and talked to County staff about the potential for development in the fringe area around the city; they discouraged it because of prime farm land. Within weeks, they see applications for annexation of those properties. He hopes there's some way they can temper that somehow to slow down the big land grabs. He said they're doing it, not because of any of the environmental issues, or any of the other issues, they're doing it because they know they can develop, or they know their not going to be able to develop with the County. Dvorak said they're losing a lot of land to annexations. Bolkcom said it strikes up the need for the Board to meet with elected officials in the towns and talk about fringe areas and annexation. Stutsman agreed, because a lot of the policies that are set up in Iowa City have a direct impact on what happens in the County. She said a lot of times when they're so restrictive in the City, their next step is to come out in the County.
Dvorak said when the Board gets to the Swisher Fringe Area, they will be torn right down the middle, because there is a huge segment of people there that want to see slow growth, large lots, and low density; and there is a group there of about 494 signatures that basically want one acre lots. He said the City of Swisher doesn't know what to do. Dvorak said the Board's going to realize at those meetings more active involvement from the public than they've probably seen at any of the comp plan meetings. He said Swisher can't grow because their sewer system is dead; expansion has occurred under County jurisdiction using wastewater systems. Dvorak said there's going to get property annexed in Swisher with wastewater systems and wells, the thing they don't want to see. He said Shueyville has no wastewater system, has no well, and that's an incorporated city. Bolkcom said the County needs to help Swisher get the money to fix it. Dvorak said they don't want the extra work and burden to grow. Bolkcom said they might have that in some of the unincorporated areas where they're saying let's grow there.
Dvorak said whenever they have these hearings around the incorporated cities, they've had no input from anybody living in those cities. Jordahl said the Swisher Fringe Area Agreement suggests a less dense development farther out and more dense closer in, but still rural development. He asked about the concept of sprawl; that when they talk about preserving farm land, it isn't just a question of keeping the conflicts down between incompatible land uses, but also talking about whether they are consuming farm land unnecessarily to do the residential development that needs to occur anyway because of the growing population. Jordahl asked if it would be possible to be really strict like the current plan is and say that only should go in the cities, or it would be possible to moderate that to some extent as the Swisher Fringe Area Agreement is suggesting. He said he is kind of opposed to the idea of the Land Use Plan being sort of forced to accommodate the existing fringe area agreements, because it seems like they ought to be done in the context of the Land Use Plan, instead of the other way around. Jordahl asked if there is a municipality providing services in it's area, but maybe it's got problems, doesn't want to grow. Does the County then say, well all right, but somehow it's better to have our sprawl confined to the fringe area of those municipalities in hopes that at some future time they will see the logic of annexation and expand the plant and deal with it in a more systematic way. Stutsman said she thinks that's a discussion for fringe areas. Jordahl said it's a question that pertains to the agricultural protection and residential development goals. Stutsman asked if Jordahl had a specific goal. Jordahl said he hadn't created one. Lacina said the County can't force it into the fringe area, because if the city refused to record the plat the County can't force it there. He said if the city isn't willing to accept that growth, they don't have jurisdiction to put it there. Jordahl said they seem to be wanting quite a bit.
Stutsman asked if they want 2 different bullets or to keep it as it is. Jordahl said he's for splitting it, because he's in favor of the first half of it and the 2nd half of it is to him a separate issue. He can strongly support the first half of that. Stutsman asked about the language- Foster orderly and efficient residential growth. Jordahl said- around the incorporated municipalities. Bolkcom asked how about- in and next to. Jordahl said- in and around. Bolkcom asked what around means. Duffy asked if it was regardless of what type of land it is. Jordahl said that was a good question. Jordahl asked if they should say discourage, excepting prime farm land; putting CSR in there. He'd be in favor of that. Stutsman said then they would have said that there will be no more growth east of Iowa City.
Bolkcom said he thinks the general policy should be- Foster orderly and efficient residential growth in and next to incorporated municipalities or in the fringe areas of incorporated municipalities. Duffy said that left out the unincorporated towns. Bolkcom said that's going to be a separate bullet. Duffy said it's too much about cities. Bolkcom restated the proposed general policy- To foster orderly and efficient residential growth in incorporated areas, in incorporated municipalities and their fringe areas. Jordahl said he likes that. Stutsman said, OK, and asked for the 2nd bullet. Bolkcom suggested- Allow limited... Stutsman said- allow limited orderly and efficient residential growth in unincorporated municipalities. Jordahl said to just say- allow limited growth in unincorporated villages. Bolkcom said pages 54 and 55 need to be re-worked.
Chase asked if- support growth in and around unincorporated villages- was the language. Jordahl said they were just suggesting that say allow limited growth. Stutsman agreed. Duffy said, he'd say support- in some unincorporated areas. Bolkcom said they can list them, or not; they're listed on page 54. Stutsman said she would go along with allow limited growth in unincorporated areas. Duffy said the word allow really is not a word that he's going to use; to allow on private property bothered him a little bit. Jordahl said, if it's zoned agricultural, the Board's charge is to deal with zoning. He said if it's agricultural private property then their duty is to address in the interests of the larger public good, whether they're going to go to the expense of providing the infrastructure necessary to support that growth. He said that's one of the things they do when they vote on a zoning, they allow it or not. Lacina said he'll just go on record as opposed to this. Duffy said he's going to oppose it too, on the record.
Lacina said he thinks what they've got with the inclusion of unincorporated villages is adequate, because he does think they're making decisions based on what's limited. He asked if the County gets into a litigation situation, what are their definitions for different locations; are they going to treat them the same. Bolkcom said limited growth was the language in the current Comprehensive Plan, as it relates to the whole North Corridor and the County didn't get sued once about that. Jordahl said the idea of these are goals. Lacina said their original bullet covered it well and he would continue to support that as opposed to what they're doing. Jordahl asked that the word at the end of that bullet be villages and not areas, because when they talk about limited growth in unincorporated areas, that means the whole rural area. Stutsman said she agrees.
Bolkcom said for the first bullet he wants to add a word- Foster the majority of orderly and efficient residential growth in incorporated municipalities and their fringe areas. Lacina said to him that's a quota and he can't support that. Duffy agreed. Stutsman agreed too, not liking the wording. Bolkcom said he thinks they ought to encourage. He thinks if they're going to grow in unincorporated areas, which he thinks is a really bad idea, they should do that on a really limited basis. Stutsman said she thinks they've said that. Bolkcom said he would say they should encourage in incorporated areas the majority of growth. He said 64% of the population increase was in Iowa City in the 80's, 26% was in 4 townships north, North Liberty grew, and Coralville grew; it might be helpful to see where the growth has been happening. Duffy said Bolkcom has been encouraging growth in the cities and just made the statement that's where the growth is anyway.
Bolkcom said it would be really helpful for the Board to understand what the capacity of all the small communities sewer and water plants are right now. He discussed meeting with some members of the city councils, citing such discussions in Linn County. Bolkcom said one of the issues that's come up is annexation and concern about prime farm ground; the County is concerned about protecting prime farm ground. He asked if all the cities have that same goal. Lacina said they don't have that in the Code as the County does. Bolkcom asked how do they know it's a goal of the County if the Board doesn't talk to them about it. Stutsman said maybe that's what they need to do once they get this in place, to go out and have public hearings with the mayors and the small towns about their comp plan.
Jordahl said one thing he would like to bring up in such a discussion would be a limitation of the automatic extension of the fringe area around the towns, so maybe they would then get in-fill development as the city grew, rather than an extension of the fringe area. He doesn't know whether it should be a goal or not. Lacina said the cities have that option to extend once they annex; they can automatically decide if they want to kick that fringe out. Jordahl said, right, but they could agree that they won't automatically do that without consulting with the County. Dvorak said they do that now with Iowa City and it's a good thing they did. With Swisher and Tiffin, they'd established a physical line; with Iowa City it's a meandering line and it will continue to move. For Swisher and Tiffin, the line is locked for 3 years. Also all 3 fringe area agreements say they will do no annexation except voluntary. Dvorak said everybody they've talked to about prime farm land, has gone running back to the cities and voluntarily annexed. He said Swisher has a really neat idea; they've created a buffer, basically everything north of 120th Street, which has a very high potential for agricultural. He said they will not annex in that area, the only people that can build in that area are farmers, and that's in the fringe area agreement. Dvorak said that's not even being argued; it's the areas to the south, where he thinks development should occur when the roads are improved, that's where the arguments are going to be. Bolkcom said he would like to in general see some sort of build-out plan, where they look at this question of developing all these unincorporated areas and incorporated areas and see visually what the impact 20 years from now of this policy is going to be.
Stutsman said she thinks they've finished with the first residential goal and added 2 parts to that. She read the next goal- Ensure that new development includes adequate infrastructure and quality public services. Chase noted an error in the handout and the goal does end with the word- services. Bolkcom asked what adequate means and does- quality public services- mean they're going to do something? Chase said, no, the reason they changed that is because they had a problem with it before. Chase said originally it read- ensure the provision of adequate infrastructure and availability of quality public services; and Board members thought that meant that the County would provide, so they changed it and this was partially their language from the minutes- ensure that new development include adequate infrastructure. He said this was to imply that developers would provide that.
Bolkcom asked who's going to provide these quality public services. Duffy said they've got them now in the rural area. Bolkcom said he's thinking about the Sheriff. Duffy said they've got a great Sheriff's Department. Bolkcom said he thinks they do too. Bolkcom said he just thinks there's again this conflict between limited services in rural parts of the County and expanded services. Duffy said, no, there isn't. Bolkcom said that's clearly discussed and outlined in the current plan. He said, this to him implies some greater commitment by the County to ensure quality public services. Bolkcom said at some point when you have a lot of subdivisions popping up here and there, the County is going to have to spend more money on public safety, and on roads- rock, dust alleviation, and snow plowing. He said he just thinks there's a cost related to quality public services. Duffy noted the school buses travel those roads.
Lacina asked how Bolkcom would rewrite it. Bolkcom said he's not sure; and suggested dropping it. Lacina said he does think it's important, in line with their policy of making subdivisions own and maintain their own roads, that they do make some statement to that effect, that they have to provide adequate infrastructure. Bolkcom agreed, and said he'd say- ensure that new development includes adequate infrastructure, period. Lacina said he thinks that might be acceptable, because the problems Bolkcom pointed out, the definitions of quality public services could be a little misconstrued. Bolkcom said somebody might want the Sheriff there in 5 minutes and it's 25 minutes. Lacina said Bolkcom's saying in 20 years, if they have this grow out, what's the long-term effect going to be, and he would be satisfied with this.
Stutsman agreed and asked if he had another bullet he wanted to add. Bolkcom said he has another one and Jordahl said he does too. Lacina suggested giving them now, even though there isn't time for discussion; then they would think about it. Bolkcom said he thinks they need a strategy in this residential development goal area to talk about in-fill development. That would be some, he doesn't know, you could put your own number on it, 800 lots, 1,000 available lots, that are existing in the County now; they're building about 150 houses a year. He asked what strategy is in place to ensure, if they're concerned about sprawl, conservation of land, and all these issues, costs and protection of farm land, that encourages some of these lots to be filled in.
Jordahl said there are a number of things that he thinks belong under the residential development goal area, including encouraging voluntary downzoning. He said they saw an example of that in Bill Young's application, and he thinks it was a wonderful thing. Jordahl said he's not saying at all that they force anybody to do this or put any kind of leverage on this, but to encourage it and to reward it in some way publicly by saying good job. He said in a similar vein to inform people of options for preserving their land as agricultural land by mutual covenants or conservation easements and so forth. Jordahl said they should investigate creative ways of channeling growth to protect our sensitive areas, preserve agricultural land, and create public spaces, such as integrated trail systems and so forth, by investigating transfer of development rights, purchase of development rights, and so forth.
Stutsman asked that anyone who has things that they want to add, could write them up, and then they can discuss them at the next work group meeting, scheduled for October 1st. Stutsman asked for any public input and there was none.
Adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary