Minutes C/Cty Plan Com 7 23 03 MINUTES
JOINT CITY COUNTY PLANNING COMMITTEE
Long Range Planning Advisory Commission
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
11:00 A.M.
City Hall Annex - Conf. Room #2
PRESENT: Committee Members Jim Waller, Jim Gonyier, Gordon Mills. Ann
Michalski. Anna O'Shea Dave Rusk and Charles Winterwood: Staff Members Laura
Carstens and Elizabeth Conton. Also present were guests Mark Jobgen and Mary Ann
Specht. both from Dubuque County.
ABSENT: Chairperson Mary Lynn Neumeister, Committee Members John
Goodmann and Mike Portzen.
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 11:04 a.m.
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE: Staff presented an Affidavit of Compliance verifying
the meeting was being held in compliance with the Iowa Open Meetings Law.
INTRODUCTIONS: Committee member Jim Waller introduced Mary Ann Specht. the
new Human Resource Manager for the County. Committee members and staff
introduced themselves.
MINUTES: Motion by Waller seconded by Winterwood, to approve the minutes from
the June 18, 2003 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
ACTION ITEMS:
Acting Chairperson Dave Rusk commend staff on putting together the information
packets for the meeting. Committee member Ann Michalski asked to rearrange the
agenda to do storm water management first. The Committee agreed to do so.
Storm Water Manaqement: Committee members and staff discussed with County
Engineer Mark Jobgen how NPDES permit requirements for storm water management
are applied in the City, within the two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction, and in the entire
county. Consensus was that the City standards will be considered more closely in the
two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction, as the County staff was not aware of any federal
requirements for NPDES permits in the County as a whole.
Discussion on how restrictive langua,qe should be: Committee members reviewed a
comparison of the revised draft agreement which highlighted restrictive versus
permissive language. Consensus was that "shall" would prevail over words like "will"
and "must" for the entire document except where otherwise noted. Discussion and
Committee consensus was as follows.
Page 1 was okay as submitted.
Minutes - Joint City/County Planning Committee
July 23, 2003
Page 2
On Page 2, staff clarified that the two-acre minimum for PUD was different than the one-
acre m~nimum required for the NPDES permit.
On page 3, everyone was okay with the changes to B.2 from "the development
capabilities" to "develooment potential".
The consensus was on page 4 that items #1 and #3 were okay, but in item 4, the word
"should" would be replaced with the word "shall" in both locations. Consensus was that
items #5 and #6 or page 4 were fine. On page 4, item #2 was discussed. The
Committee noted the difference between "encourage" for the Comprehensive Plan
versus "require" for land use ordinances. Following discussion consensus was to leave
the language in item#2 on page 4 as is.
On Page 5. in item 1 .a.1, the word "shall" was to be used in place of "will "but on Item
#1 .a. 2, the consensus was to leave the word "will' in place. On page 5, consensus was
to combine item #3 into a single requirement. Also on Page 5, agreement was reached
that in item B.2. the word "shall" should be deleted.
On page 6. the Committee agreed to change "may" and "can" to "shall" except for item
#4. where they were comfortable with "may" remaining. On page 6, item #5. consensus
was that "may" would be changed to "shall" and where appropriate would be added at
the end to address concerns with requiring storm water retention and detention facilities.
On page 7. item #2. the Committee agreed to change the wording to read, "... are
encouraged to utilize" over "are preferred." On page 7. item #3. there was discussion of
why cluster developments only appeared in secondary growth areas and not primarily.
It is related to density of development. Consensus was to leave cluster developments
in the secondary growth area sections only.
There was further discussion on other issues with the language about requiring, owning
and assuming liability for parks, open space and detention areas, as well as changing
the minimum 20% req direment. Three Committee members, Jim Gonyier. Gordon Mills
and Charles Winterwood, were in favor of leaving the 20% minimum requirement;
however, a majority of four Committee members - Dave Rusk, Anna O'Shea, Ann
Michalski and Jim Waller - were in favor of changing this wording from a m~nimum 20%
to "a portion of the property."
On Page 7. item 4. there was consensus to have this changed to match item #1 .A.3. as
shown previously on Page 5.
On page 8. the Committee agreed that items #7, #8 and #9. the wording, "may" was
more appropriate, as it still allows this to be a requirement.
On page 9. the consensus was to delete item #3. and to change all the instances of the
word "will' to the word "shall.'
On page 10. item #4, the word "may" was agreed to be changed to the word "shall."
Minutes - Joint City/County Planning Committee
July'23, 2003
Page 3
Motion by Michalski, seconded by Mills, to approve the revised draft agreement with the
above changes. Motion carried unanimously.
Comparison of City/County Roadway Standards and Definitions: Staff Member
Carstens reviewed the information provided in the packet. Acting Chairperson Rusk
reviewed the past committee discussion on the number and spacing of curb cuts for
new houses and subdivisions along major roads in the County, ~ particular, along
Asbury Road and Sundown Road west of the City of Asbury. Committee Member Mills
noted the request for information from the County was based on the importance of
access management linked to land use and development.
County Engineer Mark Jobgen discussed how the County applies access management
generally, and in specific developments atong Asbury Road and Sundown Road. He
confirmed that the County's spacing requirements had to be updated. Committee
Member O'Shea noted that the developments of concern to the Committee were within
the two-mile limit of Asbury, and were rewewed by Asbury, not the City of Dubuque.
After further discussion of spacing requirements and the lack of information on
comparable standards from the City and County, consensus was that it was difficult for
this Committee to resolve access management coordination issues. Committee
members suggested resurrecting the subcommittee that was to work on access
management when the Joint City/County Planning Committee began their process.
Motion by Michalski, seconded by Winterwood, that the Joint City/County Planning
Committee ask DMATS to initiate an Access Management Committee to resolve
coordination of the varying access standards and policies between cities, the county
and IDOT. Motion carried unanimously.
Concept Plan. Staff Member Carstens reviewed the information provided on City
checklists for concept plans for planned unit developments and preliminary plats for
major subdivisions. The consensus was [hat this information was satisfactory, and
there was no need to make any further amendments to the draft agreement.
Smart Growth Incentives/Guidelines in an Addendum: Acting Chairperson Rusk
reviewed that the Committee had discussed using an addendum as an information
piece for developers to provide information on smart growth guidelines and incentives
for development Discussion was to use the list of affordable housing incentives
provided by staff, which had been adopted by the City Council, and to add the goals and
policies from the City and County Comprehensive Plans that provided guidelines for
smar[ growth as an informational addendum to the agreement.
ITEMS FROM THE COMMITTEE:
Next Steps: Acting Chairperson Rusk asked staffwhat the next steps would be. In
response, both Staff Member Carstens and Committee Member Anna O'Shea
suggested that this draft agreement be reviewed jointly by the City and County
attorneys as well as the City and County Zoning Commissioners. with information
Minutes - Joint City/County Planning Committee
July 23. 2005
Page 4
shared with the City Manager. Consensus was for Ms. Carstens and Ms. O'Shea to
proceed with these reviews, and then report back at the next meeting.
Next Meeting: Acting Chairperson Rusk noted that the August 18 meeting had to be
rescheduled to August 20 due to a conflict with the Downtown Planning Committee He
said he was unable to attend on August 20. and asked if this meeting could be 'noved to
August 21. The Committee agreed to move the next meeting date to August 21.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
Adopted
O2}