• Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak and Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore: Land Use Planning in the North Corridor

• County Engineer Mike Gardner and Assistant County Engineer Al Miller: Secondary Roads 5-Year Construction Program

• Discussion: Potential Road Designs in the North Corridor

• Discussion from the Public

Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 6:33 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said that after the last 5 Year Road Plan meeting, he and Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore decided to give a presentation on the Land Use Plan process and how it was created. He said that the Board felt this presentation would be a good idea as well because 4 members were not on the Board at the time of its approval.

Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore said that in 1996 the Board gave direction to the Planning and Zoning Department to begin the process to update the County’s Land Use Plan. Planning and Zoning then contacted East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) to assist in the project. The first part of the project was to gather data to analyze trends over the last 3 decades in growth and population distribution. He said that they held 5 visioning meetings at different sites within the County where citizens were given the opportunity to participate by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the County. From that feedback, Planning and Zoning identified goals and objectives, then ranked the goals and used those goals to create the policies in the Land Use Plan that the County now uses. He said that the top 7 objectives were environmental protection, agricultural protection, the creation of a comprehensive plan, a land use plan, improve roads in the northern part of the County by hard surfacing them, support long range planning by continual review, and create economic development policies. Based on those objectives Planning and Zoning created a draft of the proposed Land Use Plan, which they took to the Planning and Zoning Commission for work sessions and public hearings. After numerous meetings, the Commission recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors. The Board then held public hearings and decided that they weren’t comfortable with the language of the draft. He said that Stutsman was the only current member of the Board that was also on the Board at that time. The Board then went back to work sessions and contracted with Countrymen Group, a private consultant. The Board held numerous work sessions with staff, the public, and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Board then sent the Land Use Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission for public hearings, who then reviewed it, and sent it back to the Board for approval. He said that the Board held public hearings in December of 1998 and on December 31st 1998, adopted the Land Use Plan that is currently in use.

Moore said that the Land Use Plan has 3 major goals: preserve and protect agricultural ground and farming operations; protect environmental resources; and guide non-agricultural development to areas that are appropriate while maintaining and improving the quality of life for all citizens of Johnson County. In order to achieve these goals, the Land Use Plan breaks the County into 5 areas: rural agricultural, villages, the North Corridor, fringe areas, and cities. Moore explained that the County does not want to rezone to any non-agricultural uses in the rural agricultural area. He said that the villages are a growth area because they are historical communities where people have settled in Johnson County, so the Board decided to use those as areas where people could live if they didn’t want to live in the larger metro areas. He said that the North Corridor is a problem area because when the County adopted zoning in 1960, they mass zoned 15,000 acres to single family residential, which started in the Iowa City area and continued north along the river to the Reservoir. He said that in the fringe areas as required by State Law, cities have the right to review and approve plats to their standards. He said that as part of the policies the Board adopted in 1998, Planning and Zoning was to continue to create Fringe Area Agreements and work with the cities to manage growth. Moore said that the Land Use Plan contains general development policies, which covers environmental, agricultural, minimize conflict, transportation, residential, economic development, and parks and open space. He said that the Plan then goes into specific policies for each area. He said that if a resident is requesting something, they have to look at the area in the Land Use Plan that they live as well as the general policies. Moore said that the County has 2 growth areas, the cities and the fringes, and everything else is protecting agricultural areas.

Moore said that in November of 2003 the Board amended the Land Use Plan for policies for the North Corridor. He said that it took time to get the new policies in place because the Board didn’t always agree. He said that staff was trying to recognize the past growth and development as well as the existing zoning and the direction the County is heading. He said that Planning and Zoning wanted to protect agricultural areas in Phase II as long as they could. He said that they’ve found in planning that as cities or developments grow near agricultural areas, the ag areas that are close to the growth start to disinvest in the farm because it will eventually be used for development. He said that Planning and Zoning wanted to try to stop that in Phase II, which the majority of the Board decided to approve. He said part of the amended policies ask the Board to create and adopt a capital improvements program for roads. He said that over the years, previous Boards have neglected to account for infrastructure in the North Corridor while allowing tremendous growth. He said that this Board and residents of the North Corridor have been experiencing that. Moore asked how the County could manage that and answered that with limited financial resources, the County must put their dollars where they’ll get the biggest use. He said that one of the stronger things the Board did when adopting the Land Use Plan was to adopt an implementation schedule as part of the plan. He said that previous Boards had failed to act upon the plans that they had adopted. He said that the original North Corridor plan is a good example of that because it was an excellent plan with great ideas, but Boards never adopted the tools that would help achieve the goals in that plan. He said that when Planning and Zoning put forth the Land Use Plan in 1998, they also put forth an implementation schedule which included things like creating a new farmstead split ordinance, fringe area agreements, dust alleviation, a master plan for the Conservation Board, and adopting a trails plan. He said that when the Board adopted the Plan and the implementation schedule, it then committed itself to achieving those goals in the time frame outlined in the implementation schedule. He said that the Land Use Plan dictates that the County does smart growth planning, which includes fixing road infrastructure that these properties access. He said that part of that is the 5-Year Road Plan, which the Board works with citizens to create and adopt each year.

Neuzil said that there aren’t too many roads that are designed to the standards the County wants in Phase I of the North Corridor. Dvorak said that the Board has done a marvelous job in the past couple of years by improvements they’ve made on Mehaffey Bridge Road and 180th Street. He said that those areas are some areas that Planning and Zoning has included into that area for the purpose of allowing additional development. He said that prior Boards did not make those changes or involve the Planning and Zoning Department at all. He said that Planning and Zoning appreciates being involved in the 5 Year Road Plan process and believes that they have valuable input. Lehman said that Phase II of the North Corridor Plan calls for a 5 year review. He said that future Boards can determine whether or not they have the demand to move into that area for growth or whether they want to continue to infill in the Phase I area. Dvorak said that Planning and Zoning compliments the Board on doing fewer re-zonings, and in-filling areas so the vacancy rate would start decreasing, which has dropped from 31% to 27.5% this year. He said that by not allowing more development, the County is still allowing the houses and the revenues that Planning and Zoning and the Board envisioned when they started working in this direction 3 or 4 years ago.

Thompson said that Moore made the point that the Board has been planning for this for a long time. She said that as a result of public comment 2 years ago, the Board asked the County Engineers to look at other ways to accomplish a collector road system in the North Corridor. She said that they know that in order to develop there has to be a collector road system, which either means building roads on new paths or upgrading old roads to collector road standards. She said that the Board asked them to look at an aerial view and design the roads to Farm-to-Market standards. She said that a year ago when the plan was presented several members of the public pointed out that the roads were extremely destructive to their farms. She said that the Board asked Secondary Roads to look at another route that would be less destructive to those farms. She said there’s been a lot of Board discussion as well as public comment prior to these meetings and continuing until these roads are actually built. Moore said that counties are able to apply zoning because State Code allows that right, but the first thing the Code says is that counties are to protect agricultural lands and farming operations. He said that the reason the Land Use Plan is structured the way it is, is because the first goal of the Land Use Plan is to protect agricultural ground. He said that 4/5 of the County is protected agricultural land through the Land Use Plan. He said that the unfortunate thing in Phase I of the North Corridor Plan is that the agricultural users are the nuisance because it’s an immediate growth area. He said that the development that’s already in place has made the traditional farming today a nuisance to the surrounding dominance of residential use. He said that this and past Boards have allowed some people to live outside of corporate limits, but it must be done in a way that protects the quality of life for those residents and the ability of the County to support the growth.

Thompson and Lehman asked Moore to address the Road Performance Standards. Lehman said that many people he’s talked to don’t fully understand the standards. Moore explained that part of the tools the County adopted through the implementation schedule of the Land Use Plan were the Road Performance Standards. He said that 3 years ago the County created a set of standards for roads depending on their surface type and decided that certain roads could only handle X amount of traffic per day before they started having problems with safety and/or the ability of the road to function properly. He said the County adopted standards for gravel and seal coat roads in particular. He said that dirt roads are also in the Road Performance Standards, but the County doesn’t allow any traffic on dirt roads except for farming uses. He said that the Road Performance Standards apply to all the roads in the County and as Neuzil noted earlier, the roads in the North Corridor haven’t been improved until recently but are high generators of traffic traveling on gravel and chip seal roads. He said that in the past the public complained that the County was allowing too much traffic on those types of roads which was the impetus of the adoption of the Road Performance Standards. He said that as Neuzil noted, most of the roads in the North Corridor currently exceed those standards.

Assistant County Engineer Al Miller said that he’s already addressed much of the current 5 Year Road Plan at previous meetings, but he’d like to address some issues that were brought up at the previous meeting by the public. Stutsman said that this meeting is to discuss all of the roads in the 5-Year Road Plan, not just the North Corridor. Miller replied that is true, but many of the issues brought up at the last meeting pertain to the North Corridor area. Miller said that his department has been having questions regarding the purpose of the North Corridor Roads Study. Miller said the North Corridor Roads Study is the technical information the Board requested to assist in making decisions about infrastructure improvements in the North Corridor area. The Study includes preliminary plans, construction estimates, and right-of-way estimates. Miller said that there is some confusion about what type of final details Secondary Roads will have for those plans, but that detail will come in future phases after the routes are decided upon.

Miller said that another question was how funding affects the design standards that the County is required to use. He explained that the design standards are based on the functional classification of the road. For example, if a road is a collector it has a certain set of design guidelines. He said that whether improvements to the road are done with local, State, or Federal funds, the design guidelines do not change. He explained that if the Board chose to fund a road project locally, it would not relieve any of the design requirements that the County has on collector roads. Stutsman clarified that the funding does not drive the design of the road, it is the designation of collector, arterial, or local access road. Miller agreed and said that if they don’t follow certain guidelines, they can lose funding. He said that this is a possibility and certain guidelines are overseen by the Department of Transportation on a Federal Aid project, but those guidelines do not change, only the oversight of other departments.

Miller said another question asked at the previous meeting was regarding 3R guidelines, which only apply to County roads constructed to previous design standards. He said that if there was a road designed in 1940 to the current standards and traffic anticipated at that time, the County has the ability to rehabilitate and resurface the pavement as well as some additional work without having to totally reconstruct the roadway. Miller said that the roads in question in the North Corridor Study have never been designed previously to be able to have them qualify for a 3R project. He said that 3R guidelines do apply to some roads in the County, like Highway 382, because it was designed by the DOT to the standard at the time. He said they would be able to rehabilitate the pavement without necessarily having to widen the shoulders if it doesn’t meet the current requirements. Stutsman said that previous designs would be on file, so Secondary Roads knows that there’s no designs for roads like Sugar Bottom Road. Miller replied that they are on file with the County or the State. He said that there are some designs in place for small segments of these roads that may have been worked on, but for a total re-grade or pavement, the designs do not exist. County Engineer Mike Gardner said that the roads in the North Corridor have evolved over time from a wagon trail up to where they are today.

Miller said that the next issue he’d like to address is regarding flexibility in highway design. He said he’d like to stress that they are not in the final design phase of any of the roads they’re discussing here. He said they first have to make a decision on which route, if any, the County would like to dedicate resources to. He said after that they’d proceed into the design phase. Miller said at that time, Secondary Roads is aware of the flexibility they have with regards to the design guidelines they have to follow. He said that the design exception process has been mentioned, and all of the licensed engineers at the County have gone through that process. He said that process is no different than any other design process for County roads because there are difficult design issues on virtually every project they work on and they deal with design exceptions where they are necessary. Miller said that with all the design decisions that are made there is a great deal of responsibility. He said that their decisions are based on sound engineering judgement. He said that, for example, by lowering the design speed or moving the alignment there are different effects as well as a cost and a benefit to virtually every choice considered.

Harney asked about the procedure for design exceptions. Miller said that on a Federal Aid project, if Secondary Roads cannot meet the minimum design guidelines that are approved by the State, they have to go through a design exception process. He said that the process would include an exercise justifying reasons why they cannot attain the minimum design standards. Miller said that on a Federal Aid project, he would then submit those reasons to DOT personnel for review. Miller said that the only difference between a Federal Aid job and any other funded job, including a Farm-to-Market State funded job, is that the other types of jobs do not require Secondary Roads to submit that information to the State. He said that if a problem would arise in the future, Secondary Roads would produce that type of information. He said local funding does not relieve Secondary Roads if they can’t attain the required standards. Stutsman asked if they have to submit justifications to the State for a State funded road. Miller replied that they no longer have to submit the justifications to the State. Gardner explained that they still have to go through the design exception process by justifying an exception to the minimum guidelines and document the exceptions for future use.

Miller said that questions also arose on what Secondary Roads is required to do and what they should be doing regarding environmental issues. He said that after it is decided what corridor needs to be studied, the preliminary design phase would include a wetland delineation where Secondary Roads hires qualified personnel to identify areas where the construction may impact wetlands in the corridor as well as an archeological study of the corridor. He said that the current plans show a preliminary right-of-way estimate, which would be expanded to include a wider area if there are environmental areas that are found. Gardner said that typically Secondary Roads would define the center line alignment and then define the corridor as approximately 150 feet on either side of the center line. He said this would then be certified for archeology and wetland delineation that would give Secondary Roads room to adjust if there were anything found in those studies. Miller said that there are also hard copies of other questions and answers that were brought up by Dick Gibson.

Miller said that the only change to the Program is a small low-water crossing project that Cedar County requested be added. He said that it’s on a level B road, but it needs to be maintained for certain forms of access, so Cedar County requested Secondary Roads participate in the project.

Miller said that in Fiscal Year 05 Secondary Roads has 4 major projects: Highway 382 pavement rehabilitation and shoulder paving; 12th Avenue grade, pave and recreational trail project; Wapsi Avenue shoulder widening; and Sand Road grading and paving project. Miller pointed out that fiscal years break Secondary Roads’ construction season in half so if a project is listed in Fiscal Year 05 it can start anywhere between July 1st of 2004 to the end of June the following year.

Miller said that Fiscal Year 06 includes a pavement rehabilitation project on 500th Street and Newport Road grade and pave Phase I from Sugar Bottom Road to Highway 1. He said that Fiscal Year 07 includes Prairie du Chien Road grade and pave project from Newport Road to Saddle Club Road. He said that Fiscal Year 08 includes Newport Road grade and pave Phase II from Prairie du Chien to Sugar Bottom Road. He said that Fiscal Year 09 includes Sugar Bottom Road grade and pave from Newport Road to Jordan Creek Road.

Neuzil asked why Secondary Roads chose to work on a portion of Newport in 2006 and then skipped a year before completing the rest of the road. Miller replied that the project depends on what the Board decides for the corridor. He said that they’ve broken each road into doable projects for one construction season. Neuzil asked if the Board could choose to switch those 2 years. Miller replied that they could and this plan is a draft, so which years the Board wants to implement projects is up to them.

Neuzil asked why the Board is upgrading Sugar Bottom Road to encourage development when Sugar Bottom Road is in the Phase II growth area which should not be developing yet. He said that Sugar Bottom Road was included in the plan in the past, but that was before the Board implemented the phasing of the North Corridor. He said that it doesn’t mean they should map out where the Phase II roads should go, but they shouldn’t upgrade roads in areas they don’t want growth to occur in the next 5 years or longer. Stutsman agreed, but added that it should be put on the Future Projects List. Lehman said that it is on the 5 Year Road Plan in conjunction with the 5-year review of Phase II because the Engineers need to know because they need to spend their time and effort on the design and studies. Stutsman said that she doesn’t see the County investing what it will take to upgrade Sugar Bottom Road. Thompson said that if the County wants a true collector road system, they need a road that will connect to Mehaffey Bridge Road. Neuzil said that would eventually be true, but the need isn’t great until growth and development occurs in that area and the Board just voted not to allow growth there. Lehman said that they will review that vote in 5 years. Thompson asked if Sugar Bottom Road is the boarder between Phase I and Phase II. Neuzil said that if they build the road, then obviously the County would allow for some growth next to the road, but that comes back to whether or not the Board wants to encourage growth in housing next to collector roads.

Stutsman said that if Sugar Bottom is on the 5 Year Road Plan the Board must consider zoning applications regardless of the Road Performance Standards. Miller said that the Road Performance Standards say that the applications must be considered within 2 years of upgrading the road. Harney asked why it was put on originally. Miller replied that it was put on last year. Gardner said that it was a request of the Board to put it on the 5th year and this year it was moved out another year. Miller said that without direction from the Board it was not removed. Thompson said that now that the County has a sudden need to pay for Coralville’s 12th Avenue road, they may have to push the whole road off the 5 Year Road Plan. Stutsman said that she thought there were other choices for 12th Avenue. Neuzil agreed. Moore said that Sugar Bottom Road is the divider between Phase I and Phase II. He said that on the south side of Sugar Bottom road there are hundreds if not thousands of acres zoned RS that are not currently developed. He said that the only reason it can’t be developed is because of Sugar Bottom Road. Lehman said that Phase I might not be able to be filled in adequately without upgrading Sugar Bottom Road. Moore agreed because Planning and Zoning feels that in order to infill Phase I properly to maximize densities, they need a road that will allow for development which Sugar Bottom currently does not do.

Neuzil said that if the County started Sugar Bottom Road, they would want to finish the entire road with one surface, which would then go up to Mehaffey Bridge Road. Thompson said that they could split the project and finish the road the next year. Neuzil said that they just made a policy that the Board doesn’t want growth and development to occur on Jordan Creek and south of Mehaffey Bridge. He said that if they continue to upgrade the entire road, it enters into the Phase II growth area. Lehman said that they couldn’t maximize their investment if they didn’t allow for growth on both sides of the road. Neuzil said that if the Board builds Newport and Prairie du Chien roads, it would take awhile to get to Phase II. Stutsman and Neuzil said they’d like to move Sugar Bottom to the Future Projects list. Thompson, Lehman and Harney said that they’d like to keep it on the 5 Year Road Plan, but move it back as they need to. Stutsman asked why they wouldn’t just leave it on the Future Projects list. Thompson said by that the time the road is scheduled to be built, the Board will also be reviewing the Phasing. Neuzil said that if Sugar Bottom Road isn’t on the Board members list of priorities, then other things should be on the 5 Year Road Plan. He said that at this point there are 3 Supervisors that would like to keep it on.

Neuzil asked staff what they would like from the Board because there’s been some misunderstanding of the process. Neuzil asked if staff just wants to know what roads the Board wants on the 5 Year Road Plan and not how the Board wants them to look. Miller replied that staff would like direction on which roads the Board would like them to study. Neuzil asked if any other members of the Board would like to complete Newport Road before Prairie du Chien. Lehman said that if one of the alternative routes is chosen for Prairie du Chien, they would want to finish that first because it includes Newport Road. Thompson said that they should pick the route and then pick the order. Harney asked staff at what point in the planning process they need to have the route selected. Miller said that it would be preferable for the Board to make a decision on a route and what years they would like to complete projects prior to the approval of the 5 Year Road Plan. Harney asked when staff needs to have that route determined. Miller said that generally they want that decision made by at least 2 years out, but the more leeway they have the better. Neuzil asked if the Board would like to leave or switch the order and whether or not they’d like to choose an alternative route. Miller said that all of the projects interconnect, so it would be nice to have the corridor designated so that they can complete the archeology study and wetland delineation for the entire corridor. He said that if they aren’t using certain alternatives it would cut back on the amount of work needed for the total project. He said that the North Corridor Roads Study was done to give the Board the big picture about the roads. Harney asked if Secondary Roads needs to have their 5-Year Road Plan to the State by April 15th and if at that time it needs to specify which route is to be used. Miller replied that it doesn’t. Gardner said that Secondary Roads can’t proceed past where they currently are until the decision is made.

Neuzil said that the next question is what the Board wants the roads to look like, which is the final design phase. He asked when Secondary Roads wants the Board’s approval for the final design phase of Newport Road and eventually Prairie du Chien. Miller said that the corridor needs to be defined before he can answer that question. Neuzil asked if by having a corridor defined, Miller means deciding whether or not they want an alternative route for these roads. Gardner said that Secondary Roads wouldn’t be able to answer any specific questions until that question is answered first. Thompson said that once they define the corridor, they can talk about the details of the design. Harney said that they could still make adjustments in the best interests of the individuals along that road. Lehman asked when Secondary Roads can bring a design plan to the Board if Prairie du Chien is on the third year. Miller replied that it’s all a process because the plan isn’t final until after the right-of-way is purchased. Lehman said that Secondary Roads could present a plan to the Board a year before the road is to be built. Miller replied that it would be presented at least a year before it is scheduled. Neuzil said that it comes back to the question of what the Board wants the roads in the North Corridor to look like and how they want them mapped. He asked if over the next 9 months, the Board needs to work with Secondary Roads and the public to design these roads or just give the roads they want built to Secondary Roads and have them finish the process. Lehman said that the City of Iowa City has had meetings about what types of growth they would like to see south of town. He said that he’d like to have public meetings to present the roads and designs to the public so the public can see the choices that were available.

Stutsman said that the Board has had a great deal of input on the North Corridor and she’s thought a lot about the Board’s plans. She said that the Board needs to step back and regroup because she isn’t totally satisfied that going ahead with what they are doing currently is in the County’s best interest. She said that she’d like to take a more thoughtful approach and come up with more alternatives in this area. Stutsman said that the Board needs to seek outside opinions about what the Board is doing and if it’s the right direction. She said that she thinks it’s a unique area because they are used to looking at areas as either rural or urban, but this is a highbred of both types so there’s no guidebook to address what they’re seeing. Stutsman said that they have an opportunity now to see the future 20 or 30 years down the road, so that they’re not revisiting the issues they’re dealing with right now and wishing someone had thought about something they’d missed. Stutsman said that she’s doesn’t know what they’re doing with Sugar Bottom Road because they’re just adding more houses and more issues to what they’re trying to deal with. She said she’d like to stop and have a deliberate discussion about the area to explore alternatives like Iowa City annexing it or dealing with the infrastructure needs. Stutsman suggested they have focus groups and County staff to help facilitate the discussion. Neuzil agreed with Stutsman. He said that it’s not a question of which roads they will improve, but how they should look. Stutsman said that it should be about how to do it well. Neuzil said that Lehman’s suggestion of having town meetings is a good idea. Lehman said that he wants to keep Sugar Bottom Road on the 5-Year Road Plan to remind people that they do live in a growth area and that in 5 or 10 years it will be addressed.

Thompson asked if the Board has enough time before Fiscal Year 07 to complete this kind of planning. Stutsman asked if they should leave the 5-Year Road Plan as is and complete an intensive study in the interim. Neuzil said that the timing needs to take place this year because Newport Road is scheduled in 2006 and Secondary Roads needs to know what the Board wants the road to look like. He said that in the past they’ve had a couple of Board members working with a committee or staff. He asked if they want all 5 members to be a part of the process because he has a feeling that they’re going to have many people who want to be a part of the process. Harney said that what makes the situation difficult is that although he advocates winding roads, there is a major recreation area in the North Corridor that creates a great deal of traffic. He said that they need one or 2 collector roads in that area to manage the traffic and then let the residential areas grow on top of it. Harney asked what the definition of a collector road is. An IDOT Representative said that it’s basically a route that is collecting traffic from the local area and carrying it to a higher level system.

Stutsman suggested that Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan bring some options to the Board. Thompson said that the Board definitely needs help because with 20 plans on the first year of the 5-Year Road Plan, Secondary Roads staff has other things to do besides an intensive planning process. Lehman said that he’d like to deal with the City planners to see how they handled their process. Lehman said that the City even discussed schools and retail centers. Stutsman said that the County might be to the point where they’re responsible for more infrastructure than roads and ambulances. She asked Planning and Zoning if that was something they could explore and bring suggestions to the Board. Lehman said that he’d like to use those meetings as an educational tool for everyone because everyone has to be on the same page moving forward. He said that many people don’t understand all of the criteria that the Board is trying to involve in their final decision like using Planning and Zoning in the 5-Year Road Plan Process. Neuzil said that if the Board wants to proceed in the planning process, it must start very soon. Thompson asked if the Board wants to give Sullivan a date to come back to the Board with a plan. Stutsman said that she would like Sullivan and Moore to work together on the process. Thompson said that the plan would then be on the Board’s agenda for discussion. Stutsman said that the planning process should cover what the entire North Corridor area should look like.

Lehman asked if the Board wants to keep the 5 Year Road Plan as is to give Secondary Roads something to submit, even though the Board doesn’t know what the roads will look like. He said that what the roads will look like will then be determined in the work sessions. Neuzil asked if having this done by fall will give Secondary Roads enough time. Stutsman said that they have plenty of projects to work on in the interim. Miller replied that Secondary Roads needs lead time of a couple years in advance of when something needs to be built. Lehman said that if the Board doesn’t narrow the field, then it will take Secondary Roads 3 times as long to study 3 different routes. Miller asked the Board to keep in mind that this spring they will be very busy with the Sand Road project. Stutsman said that makes it a good time to move forward with the public meetings while Secondary Roads is busy working on the Sand Road project. Neuzil said that this planning process will be the next major project after the budget is finished.

Sandy Plank, speaking on behalf of herself and her father Clarence Lichty, said that they believe the Board of Supervisors should give Sharon Center Road their utmost consideration and place it on the 5-Year Road Plan. She said that this road needs to be made driver friendly for today’s traffic load with improvements like sharp turns straightened, hills leveled, and Old Man’s Bridge replaced. She said that there are more and more Amish traveling the road and sometimes they’re going all the way to Iowa City on this road. She encouraged Boards member to travel Sharon Center Road to see the sharp curves, hills, no shoulders, and area of large trees that shade the road from sunlight preventing ice from melting. She said that no one can dictate who travels Sharon Center Road and each year more new houses are forthcoming with direct access to the road. She said that the road needs to be brought up to today’s standards with shoulders and gradual sloping ditches with flat bottoms in case emergency stopping is necessary and to accommodate slow moving vehicles such as large farm machinery.

Plank said that at the December 16th meeting, a Supervisor asked the County Engineer the condition of the bridge over Old Man’s Creek. She said that her father wrote that the Engineer’s reply was that the bridge was outdated, but the minutes say that it is functionally obsolete which means that it is narrow and has clearance problems. She said that’s a reason to upgrade the road. Plank said that safety is a crucial matter and should not be taken lightly. Plank said that the need is there and it’s time to move in a positive direction. She asked the Board not to wait for more accidents to happen to be the deciding factor to move ahead. She said that people’s lives should not be sacrificed over landowners possessions and her father is very optimistic that the Board will do the right thing. Plank said that in the time period since the last meeting, there have been 3 accidents. Plank said that she wanted to clarify the minutes regarding a comment from Neuzil that stated the Boardroom was full of people who were against the project. She said that the only people at the last meeting where her father and herself. Neuzil replied that he was referring to a prior meeting where the Board took Sharon Center Road off the 5-Year Road Plan. Plank said that the Engineer’s mentioned that if the project had stayed on the 5-Year Road Plan, it would have been completed this past summer.

Dick Gibson said that he appreciated the presentation given by the Planning and Zoning staff, which he deemed very helpful. He said that it made him wonder how the County had come up with the proposal that they’ve been looking at for the past 2 months given the background regarding the goals of the Land Use Plan. Gibson said that it makes him feel that the process is disjointed, which is why he wants to spend his time talking about process. Gibson said that he has met with all of the Board members individually in the past month and he has focused on process. Gibson said that he appreciates the answer to his questions concerning the road system, although they were late, and he would’ve liked a chance to review them. Gibson said that it’s too bad that the Land Use Plan was not explained 2 months ago when the 5 Year Road Plan came out. He said that there was a lot of mystery about why the Engineers proposed what they did. Gibson said that it turns out that they were working under explicit instruction and it would have been helpful if everybody knew that and knew what that instruction meant in terms of the larger context.

Gibson said that planning is a process that starts at a particular point. He said that they are in the wrong point to be talking about some of the things that are being talked about. Gibson referenced the book Flexibility in Highway Design, which is a Federal publication from the Department of Highways. He said that it is important to look ahead during the planning stage and consider the potential impact that a proposed facility or improvement may have while the project is still in the conceptual phase. He said that during planning key decisions are made that will affect and limit the design options of subsequent phases. Gibson said that some questions to be asked during the planning stage include: how will the proposed transportation improvement affect the general physical character of the area surrounding the project; does the area to be affected have unique historic or scenic characteristics; and what are the safety, capacity, and cost concerns of the community. Gibson said that the book says it is important to look ahead during the planning stage and consider the potential impact that a proposed facility or improvement may have while the project is still in the conceptual phase. He said that if a consensus cannot be reached on the definition of the problem at the beginning, it will be difficult to move ahead in the process and expect consensus on the final design.

Gibson said that the Board’s discussion about the role Sugar Bottom played in relationship to the 5-Year Road Plan and the Land Use Plan suggests that there’s a significant lack of communication between the 2 plans. Gibson said that these things don’t seem to have jive, which says to him that there is no overarching plan for the area. He said that he’s talked to each Supervisor and some have vehemently told him that there are plans that they’ve been working on since the 1970’s, but they don’t show in terms of the reality today because they’re not helping the Board make decisions. He said that there has not been an adequate planning base established for this to all happen. He said that he’s really gratified to hear the Board talking tonight as if they have started to appreciate the problem.

Gibson said that there’s been some talk about worrying about the Engineer’s schedules, which are relevant, but the Board needs to keep in mind the constituents. He said that there’s been a great deal of consternation established on a lot of people’s parts on what might be the road out in front of their house. He said that the matter needs to be decided sooner rather than later so people know what to expect as far as he’s concerned. Gibson said that if anyone wants to sell their house that is in a vulnerable position, they’d have a hard time and lose a lot of money due to the uncertainty. He said that the Board has an obligation to follow through with the planning process they’re starting to discuss so the people can understand how this is going to impact their life in the future.

Gibson said that the Board had an interesting discussion on collector roads. Gibson said that somebody casually used the word collector road to describe the proposed construction on either Newport or Prairie du Chien. He said that the IDOT person has said that there is not really a definition of a collector road, yet the Engineers said they have requirements to meet for a collector road. Gibson said that terms should not be thrown around if the meaning is not known and the Board should be very careful not to use them to describe a planning or action objective for staff. Gibson said that they need to know the meaning of a collector road and why a collector road might be needed before the planning process begins.

Gibson said he said that he was happy to hear Lehman mention the experience he had with the south Iowa City planning. Gibson said that he was on the City Planning and Zoning Commission when it was done. He said it was a very helpful process and Lehman understands as well as anybody what Gibson means when talking about planning for an area like the North Corridor.

Gibson said there are examples within Iowa that illustrate that there are better effective alternatives to the ones suggested by the County Engineer, even after it goes through the iteration process and refinement process that has been discussed. He said that his references earlier to making mistakes starting the process are what make the process vulnerable. Gibson said that it can and has been done before and can be done again with enlightened and concerned leadership. He cited the western edge of Polk County, where rural residential expansion west of Des Moines and its suburbs have been significant. He said that Polk County was able to improve their existing roads using Farm to Market Funds in a context sensitive design. Gibson said that context sensitive design has not been used by Johnson County in the North Corridor work. He said that the context has been ignored. He said that the design used by Polk County that sprang from the context sensitive design concept minimized extensive right-of-way acquisitions in the area, minimized re-grading, and minimized environmental disruption and destruction. He said that it was accomplished by enlightened policy direction using programs and procedures already in place in the State and generally known to County Engineers. Gibson said that there is a process to make it legal and somewhat immune from some tort liability concerns that have been raised. Gibson asked that the Board look into how the context sensitive design came about in Polk County with the mindset that it can be done. He said that further action of the 5-Year Road Plan should be suspended. Gibson said that the Board could easily and quickly gather this information that will confirm there are available political options to the proposal submitted by the Engineers. He said that he spoke to one of the higher authorities in the DOT to get this lead and it can be done. He said that it requires starting off assuming the County can do it. Neuzil asked if there was a year or time that it took place. Gibson said that the Board could speak with the Polk County Engineer as to when and how that was done and even the language the Board needs to justify different decisions than they might otherwise make. He thanked the Board for the meeting.

Stutsman said that she has been on the Board the longest, and has worked with Gardner and Miller, and she has the utmost respect for them. She said that they are consummate professionals who get direction from the Board, who is the policy makers. She said that the Board has given them direction and they have responded. Stutsman said that everything that they have done has been of the utmost precision. Stutsman said that there has never been a project that they have worked on that she hasn’t been proud to say that has been done by Johnson County and with County tax dollars. She emphasized that the Engineers work under the direction of the Board. She said that the Board makes the policies. She said that she will never admit that they aren’t capable of doing an outstanding job, which they have done on every job they’ve done.

Dick Sjolund said that he is very pleased to hear the concept that the County might push back the decision to upgrade Sugar Bottom Road. He said that Sugar Bottom Road is only 6 miles long and is one of the most spectacular roads in all of Iowa, if not the Midwest. He said that some years ago the Des Moines Register called Sugar Bottom Road the 6 most beautiful miles of road in the State of Iowa after Ragbrai traveled it. Sjolund said that he moved to Iowa 30 years ago and can say with all honesty and sincerity that Sugar Bottom is one of the things that has kept him in Iowa over those 30 years. He said that Sugar Bottom Road is 6 miles of twisting roads, which is the best, part even though many things he’s heard makes it sound like corners are bad. Sjolund said that it’s a safe road and the people who live there know how to drive on it. He said that Sugar Bottom’s beauty can be described as driving down a curvy road in a green canopy. He said the idea of knocking out a 100 feet of trees on either side of the road dismays him. He said that the Johnson County Heritage Trust is doing everything they can to preserve land in that area. He asked the Board to leave the road alone.

Harvey Henry said that they like the idea of being able to get together with the Board of Supervisors to talk the issues over. Neuzil said that the Board has listened. Henry said that the community, the Board of Supervisors, and Secondary Road should accept the challenge of working together to save the natural rural beauty of the county and the property values of the current and future residents of the North Corridor. He said that everyone has spent a great deal of effort in the last 6 weeks trying to get a handle on the situation. He said that the public needs to have the Board explain why the County is set on having the massive right-of-way that denudes the neighborhood. Henry said that it’s shattering to everyone to learn that the trees will be cut down for the right-of-way and then to also learn that by regulation property owners can’t have a tree closer than 40 feet from the right-of-way. He said that when they moved to the area 40 years ago there was a canopy of trees on Lang’s Hill. He said that now they’d never see a canopy again because they can’t have the trees. He said that the community thinks they should look for a way to keep the roads within the 66 feet right-of-way. He said that the State Code says that as well as the Johnson County Land Use Plan and it should be the major goal. He presented a drawing to the Board and asked for consideration of a trail on some roads, especially to the Coralville Dam. He said that there are similar trails off Scott Boulevard and Mormon Trek. Henry said that they feel a narrow road is better because there is fast moving traffic on wide roads and slower moving traffic on narrow roads. He suggested adding guardrails and retaining walls to eliminate the need for acquisition of costly right-of-way that destroys properties. Henry said that he’s heard comments that farms in the North Corridor aren’t as important in comparison to those in the south end of the County, but State Code and the Land Use Plan say specifically that the County is supposed to be protecting farm land. He said that the County isn’t doing a good job of protecting farmland. He said that keeping people in a state of limbo is unfair.

Ray Gordon said that he is pleased with the discussion during this meeting. He said that given what has been stated, there’s a need to stress flexibility as a design concept. He referenced Flexibility in Highway Design by the Federal Highway Administration and said that an important concept in highway design is that every project is unique. He said that the setting and character of the area, the values of the community, the needs of the highway users, and the challenges and opportunities are unique factors that designers must consider with each highway project. He said that whether design to be developed is for modest safety improvement or 10 miles of new location rural freeway, there are no patented solutions. He said that for each potential project designers are faced with the task of balancing the need for the highway improvement with the need to safely integrate the design with the surrounding natural human environments. Gordon said that in order to do this, designers need flexibility. He said that there are a number of options available to State and local highway officials to aid an achievement of balance in road design and resolve design issues. He said that these include the following: use of flexibility within the standards adopted by each state; recognize that design exceptions may be optional where environmental consequences are great; be prepared to re-evaluate decisions made in the planning phase; lower design speed where appropriate; maintain the roads existing horizontal and vertical geometry and cross section; undertake only resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation improvements or the 3R concept; consider developing alternative standards for scenic roads; and recognize the safety and operation impact of many design features and modifications. Gordon said that the 3R standards allow designers to tailor their designs to the particular situations encountered in each highway project. He said that often these standards alone provide enough flexibility to achieve the harmonious design that meet the objectives of the project and are sensitive to the surrounding environment. He said that when faced with extreme social, economic, or environmental consequences it is sometimes necessary for designers to look beyond the givens of a highway project and consider other options. He said that the design exception process is one such alternative. Gordon said that in other cases it may be possible to re-evaluate planning decisions or rethink the appropriate designs. He said for existing roads, sometimes the best option is to maintain the road as is or make only modest 3R improvements. He said that when the impact of the proposed action is evaluated and flexible design considerations are appropriate, they should be investigated. He said that all of these options may give designers flexibility to use their expertise and judgement in designing roads that fit into the natural and human environments while functioning efficiently and operating safely.

Henry said that in every phase of the project there should be a cost benefit analysis. He said that they’re very concerned that some of the estimates are high and they’re wondering what the benefit is. He said that a road that crosses farm ground should be rejected. He said that the Board has indicated that they wouldn’t take care of the bypass portion of Newport Road, but there are many people who live out there that shouldn’t be left with gravel roads. Henry said that the County will have the cost of maintaining the new roads and the cost of rebuilding the old roads. Henry said that design exceptions adjust the plan by reducing speed around the corners. He said that the road is currently a school bus route as well as needed for emergency services. He recommended dispensing of the alternative route and concentrating on the number 6 option. He said that regarding excluding sections of Newport Road, he believes the County would be liable if they didn’t improve them as well. He said that liability is the responsibility to make restitution to the damaged party through the action or payment determined by the court. He said that using a design exception doesn’t automatically establish negligence if a justification documented by a designer completely describes the physical and environmental factors that make the exception of any design necessary. Henry said that it is likely that this would be legally persuasive if the correct procedures were followed and the appropriate decision was made. He said that with concern about litigation, designers may be tempted to be very conservative in their approaches. He said that while it is important for design engineers to do their jobs as thoroughly and carefully as possible, avoiding unique solutions is not an answer, because this may undermine design practice and limit the growth in the engineering profession. He said that designers need to remember that their skills, experience, and judgement are still valuable tools that should be applied to solving design problems and that with reliance on complete and sound documentation tort liability concerns may not be an impediment to achieving good road design.

Harney said that he doesn’t know of a Board member that is willing to take anyone’s house for this project. Harney said that the plans called for a house to be removed but the Board said they wouldn’t do that.

Betty Kemp said that when RAGBRAI came through Newport Road the Fairview Church had a food booth was in her front yard. She said that people from all over the world loved the area, but if the County destroys it there will be nothing.

Bob Maske said that things will keep changing as the years go by, but he wants to discuss what’s already been done in the North Corridor. He said that Lang’s Hill tilts the wrong way on the curve and he wonders who designed it and why it hasn’t been fixed. Stutsman asked if Maske is a civil engineer. Maske said no. He said that the original road was a 90-degree corner, but it’s now almost 3/8 of a circle because they go past more land than they have to with almost straight sides. He said that there’s no trees there, only telephone poles. He asked the County to design roads with safety in mind.

Neuzil asked what Secondary Roads has seen for safety numbers on Prairie du Chien up to Newport Road. Gardner said the data they have now stops at 2000, which is the same year that Prairie du Chien was completed.

Greg Pickett asked that the item for Newport Road to Sugar Bottom Road be moved back another year in order to complete the study. He read from Governor Vilsack’s State of the State Address saying that the ability to continue transformation depends on the ability to improve the quality of life in Iowa. He said that people sometimes fail to recognize how important the environment is to quality of life. He said that they must continue to invest in the protection of natural resources to be true to the heritage of Iowa, a beautiful land.

Lucas Vanorden said that the Board has a difficult process in front of them. He thanked the Board for the realignment of Prairie du Chien Road to Newport Road. He said that he remembers when the road was realigned to put in a bridge that would flood on a regular basis. He said that the decision wasn’t popular at the time, but it was done because it was taking away farmland. He said that the Board has a perception of value problem with people in the North Corridor. He said the he was invited to a meeting of area residents where he sat and listened to a group of 60 residents who choose not to understand what the Board does in it’s full capacity. He said that people’s perception is that the Board is comprised of a group of 5 imbeciles who are subject to the great conspiracy of road builders in the area. Vanorden said that he doesn’t believe that’s the case or that those 60 people believe that either. He said that there is a group of people so concerned over the impact that this will have for them that it might be time for perception of value service work, which may be meeting with people and public education. He said that at the Board of Adjustment, they see a lot of people who don’t understand what setbacks and right-of-ways are about, and spend a great deal of time educating them. He encouraged an educational forum that will explain the implications of granting right-of-ways. He said the problem is that the people who are speaking passionately about losing their front yards have already granted the County the right-of-way. He said that it’s the County’s right to use that land how they choose. Vanorden said that the Board has an opportunity to soften this with residents by explaining what the options are and how the process works before making the hard decision. He said that safety is a big issue, so using an exception is fine if it fits and is safe. He asked the Board not to forgo safety in doing this.

Jay Herman said that one of the primary reasons he has moved to the North Corridor was to be on the bike route. He said that Sugar Bottom Road is truly one of the most beautiful roads in Iowa. He said there are only a handful of roads in the State that have that charm. He said that the area is one of the rare places where the road is dictated by landscape. He said that the road has value and he believes that there are other options. He encouraged the Board to drive the road if they haven’t already.

Lehman volunteered to work with Sullivan in contacting people to set up a work session, bringing in options, and working with engineers. Neuzil said that the process is still open until they get into the informal meeting on January 29, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. Stutsman said that the public will have the opportunity to comment at the informal meeting.

Adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary