Loading...
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}