MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 24, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Discussion: Land Use Plan Review by East Central Iowa Council of Governments Representative Chad Sands 1
Discussion from the Public.................................................................................................... 11
Chairperson Lehman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 4:31 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Lehman said the goal for tonight is to review the Land Use Plan that was passed on December 31, 1998. He said that part of the implementation, review and action goals were to review the document periodically and they are at this point now due to changes in public opinion and trends. He said there have been some changes made to the Land Use Plan from its original acceptance and passage in 1998. He said that tonight their procedure will be to have a history of what they’ve had, and a description of what changes have been made. Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak and ECICOG Representative Chad Sands will do an explanation of the process that will be employed to do this review. He said there will be a lot of questions tonight, and they will not have all the answers. Lehman explained that the Land Use Plan review will be a long process.
Dvorak introduced Planning and Zoning Commission members Bob Saunders, Harry Wolf, Maynard Hebl, Kae Wilde, and Al Carr. He introduced staff members Assistant Planner Dan Swartzendruber, ECICOG Representative Chad Sands from ECICOG, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore, and the Intern Jeff Wiggins. He said that what they would like to do tonight is to have Supervisors and Zoning Commissioners ask questions during the presentation rather than waiting until the end.
Dvorak said that the presentation they are about to give has been online for about a week. People can also receive hard copies of the presentation on request. Dvorak said they started the Land Use Plan review process in Spring 2005 when they entered into an agreement with ECICOG. Dvorak said that Swartzendruber and Wiggins will be doing the data presentation.
Swartzendruber said they have a series of maps and data analysis slides that he wanted to show first. What they try to do is to do a snapshot of pre-Land Use Plan in 1998, and post- Land Use Plan, trying to give an idea of where they were, what they were doing as far as development activity, and where they are now in comparison. He proceeded with the slideshow. He began by showing the various categories which Zoning maps: major and minor residential subdivisions, farmstead split subdivisions, and new home construction. He said they have also done some analysis products, and have looked at the existing single family dwellings in both the phases of the North Corridor. He said they have also looked at vacant residential lots in both of the phases, and have done a CSR analysis for Phase I and Phase II of the North Corridor. Swartzendruber thanked Wiggins for his work on this project.
Swartzendruber showed a slide of the County zonings that were adopted in 1960. The area around the watershed and around Iowa City were the primary areas for zoning at that time. There were 44,000 acres that were designated to various classes, and that included public lands, flood plain, commercial, industrial, and residential classes. Excluding the public lands and commercial industrial classes, and just focusing on residential, there were about 17,000 acres zoned. At that time only about 176 were classified as commercial/industrial and those were primarily for existing commercial/industrial uses. The ring around Iowa City of residential zoning to the south and primarily east goes out about a mile, which is pretty significant.
Swartzendruber showed the audience the current Land Use Plan map, which indicates the two phase areas. He said that the areas for growth are considered to be the rural village areas as well. Wiggins continued to present the information. He showed a series of slides that look at two different periods, between 1990-1998 preceding the adoption of the Land Use Plan in 1998; and then following that addressing 1999- present. He showed a graphic of the rezoned parcels in those two periods of time, which showed that there has been a significant decrease in the number of parcels that have been rezoned during that time period. He said that in the first nine years approximately 2,800 acres were rezoned, whereas in the seven years following adoption of the Land Use Plan, there were less than 1,000 acres rezoned. He said that during that first window of time, three-quarters of that land was rezoned to the residential district from agricultural land, which meant a loss of ag land. After the adoption of the plan, most of that is rezoning from existing residential land to higher residential densities. The average number of zoning applications in the earlier period was approximately 46 per year, whereas that dropped to only 18 per year in the latter period, indicating some great success in the implementation of the Land Use Plan. He went on to discuss the major residential subdivisions during those same two time periods. A major residential subdivision as far as the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Department is concerned is one that is four or more lots and requires both a preliminary and a final plat for adoption. The slides showed that there were far fewer major residential subdivisions during the latter period, and more significantly, that those that did occur during the latter period were focused on that North Corridor area which has been defined as the growth area for Johnson County. Beyond that, looking at three of the villages; Cosgrove, Frytown and Sutliff; some of those major subdivisions did take place in those areas as well. He said that there were two interesting trends that took place during this time period. The average lot size has decreased from 2.48 acres to 2.13 acres, and at the same time, the size of the out-lots has increased from 5.5 - 6.75 acres, indicating a preservation of vital open space and environmentally sensitive areas.
Swartzendruber said that looking at minor subdivisions, which are those that are three or fewer lots and can be adopted with a combined plat, these also do include the farmstead splits that he said he will address in a moment. He said that the time series here is slightly different because in December 2000 they adopted the uniform building code, which requires building inspection and an occupancy certificate prior to occupancy. He said that these two slides show a greater difference between these two time periods, which suggests that there are far fewer rezonings and approvals after adoption of that ordinance in 2000, and that some of this is likely a result of the Road Performance Standards that were adopted.
Swartzendruber went on to look at farmstead splits. According to the current ordinance, a farmstead split is when there are 41 or more acres and an applicant peels off one or more acres in order to create a new building on that land. He said that this development is widespread throughout the county. He said that it has remained fairly consistent over these two time periods in terms of how many have been passed per year, which is about 27 per year in both time frames. He said that the new ordinance that was adopted in 2000 has made it easier to obtain this kind of subdivision because now people are able to subdivide on bare land as opposed to attempting to rezone to residential within the agricultural area as was required prior to adoption of this ordinance. Approximately 18,000 acres of parent farms have been identified, which prevents future farmstead split subdivision within these areas and safeguards against incompatible land uses in the future. This addresses some of the property rights issues for farmers who seek to support and preserve family farming activities by allowing family members to live on the farm and assist in the operation, yet it can create unintended conflicts between agricultural and residential uses, particularly when the split lot is sold to individuals unfamiliar with the rural agricultural lifestyle. He said that Planning and Zoning believes that it would be important to investigate the size of farmstead splits, as it has been creeping up since 2000. He said they have identified the farmstead split parent parcels that have been preserved as a result of the new farmstead split ordinance, which are widespread throughout the county and 18,000 acres have been preserved from future subdivision in the future. He said that the average acreage per split has been creeping up from 4.1 acres in the earlier portion from 2000-2004 and currently sits about 5.5 acres.
Finally, Swartzendruber looked at new home starts construction in those two periods. He said that there was very healthy growth in Johnson County, and a lot of that is focused on the North Corridor. It is fairly consistent with the spatial patterns between the two maps. On average 184 new homes were started during 1990-1998, and 175 between 1999 and the present. He said that this data does not take into account homes that are constructed on a farm where a permit is not required. Lehman clarified that if there is an existing home, there is requirement for a permit. He said that they have had people build a home, then split it off. They have also had people build a house on a farm and be exempt. Swartzendruber said that any new building activity needs a permit. Harney asked if they have seen any issues splitting two 40 acres parcels. Swartzendruber said there has been some of that with estate planning, since people are trying to maximize their capabilities to divide these off for their family members.
Swartzendruber said he did a couple of analysis slides that he wanted to address. He showed how many single dwellings they have in Phase I of the North Corridor. He said that there are 3,155 built parcels in that area and all those houses are on about 9,122 acres of land. It should be pointed out that not all of these are small, residential subdivided lots. Some of them are on larger parcels, some are on 40 acre parcels, and some of them could presumably be re-subdivided and re-developed. They took a multiplier of 2.65 persons per household, which meant that roughly 8,360 people are residing in that area. Within that area there are 32,000 acres of land. Of that, 11,600 acres are publicly owned or land within the 100 year floodplain. Therefore, there are really only 11,000 acres that are undeveloped. Of that area, 50% would be developable considering slopes and other conditions that would be a factor such as distance from an adequate road. Assuming that, they can forecast an additional 4,000-6,000 lots being put out in that area in the future. The current development density in this Phase I is 2.9 acres per housing unit. To maximize the development opportunities within that area, Planning and Zoning staff still believes it’s necessary to design using clustered subdivisions and also look into using shared wells and wastewater systems, which would maximize density in those areas.
Within Phase I of the North Corridor as well, Swartzendruber looked at how many vacant lots are available as well. He said that someone who owned one of these lots could come into the Planning and Zoning Office and get a building permit and construct a house in relatively short order. He said those lots are on 11,000 acres of land. He did the same analysis in Phase II of the North Corridor, which is a drastically different area. There are only 313 built parcels in this area, and they are on about 3,800 acres of land. He said that means there are about 830 people living in that area. There are 18,000 acres of land. Of this, 3.600 acres are publicly owned land or land within the 100 year floodplain, therefore there is about 10,000 acres of undeveloped land. Assuming a 50-60% developable rate, that means there are about 5,000 acres there that could be developed in the future. He said that there is much higher density in this area, with 12.12 acres per housing unit, which is reflective of a more rural, agricultural area and not as much of a suburban area as the Phase I area.
Swartzendruber said that there are only 48 vacant buildable lots within Phase II of the North Corridor, and they are on 338 acres of land. He said that the thing to point out is that the development patterns in Phase II suggest a much lower density, predominantly agricultural pattern of use. If that is contrasted with the development that’s happening in Phase I of the Corridor with the higher density and more suburban type developments, and there is a drastic difference. He said that historically, the residential development within Phase II has been largely spot-type zoning with the intent of providing a house for someone who is working for the family farm. He said that has been supplanted by the farmstead split ordinance to a degree as well, which is another vehicle for folks to grab a small parcel, where in the previous law there had to be an existing home.
Swartzendruber also did a CSR analysis, which is a Corn Suitability Rating analysis for both Phase II and Phase I of the North Corridor. He said that there is quite a bit of better quality ag ground in this area. He explained that the average CSR in this area is 62.4, which is a relatively high figure. Contrasted with the CSR analysis for Phase I and II he said that the quality ground is east and north of North Liberty predominantly. The average CSR in that entire area is 49.5, so there is a pretty drastic difference there due to a lot of conditions such as slopes and river areas. The average farm size is also smaller in this are as well, it is 86 acres. The difference is that the soils are better for agriculture in the Phase II area, and that’s something that Planning and Zoning wants to point out. Lehman asked Swartzendruber to explain the CSR and what goes into that. Swartzendruber said that it’s a rating that’s given a value that’s given to certain soil types. What they do for this analysis is clip out the parcel areas and run a geo-processing program on it to come up with this value, which is pretty accurate. He said it’s a baseline value. Lehman clarified that it indicates the productivity of the land. He said that Iowa State Extension has a formula that the absentee owners would rent their land out based on the CSR. More productive land rents for more dollars per acre. Swartzendruber said that historically that has been a consideration for the Board when they are considering zoning requests.
Dvorak said that they had invited other departments to participate in this process. He introduced Public Health Director Ralph Wilmoth and Assistant Director/Disease Prevention Manager Kot Flora, James Martin from NRCS Soil Conservation Service, and County Engineer Greg Parker.
Sands spoke next. He said that his review was based in large part on the maps that Wiggins and Swartzendruber presented, which were really quantifiable evidence that the plan was doing what the Board wanted it to do. He started with a census review about where they’ve been and where they are going. According to the two latest census periods there was a population growth of 15%. In the past four years there was a growth of 5%. He said that the rural part of the population has decreased since 2000. One reason is because of annexation, but he said that he was not too convinced that the population drop was accurate. In 2000 there was just under 20% of the County’s population residing in the unincorporated areas, and in 2004 based on that estimate it dropped to under 18%. Stutsman asked about the census review, and whether the figures from 2004 were projections. Sands said that they were estimates, which the Census Bureau comes out with every two years. He said that in 1990 the people per housing unit was 2.42 for the overall county. That number dropped to 2.38 in the last census, and that number is dropping across the region as families are getting smaller. The number of farm residents has decreased in Johnson County over the past 30 years. In 1976 there were just over 2,100 farm residents in the county, and that dropped to 1,700 in 2002. However, non-farm single family residences have increased dramatically in that time from 2,300 to well over 5,300 in that time. He said that was another indication that the rural population in the county probably isn’t decreasing. He went on to say that the number of farms in the County is going down. He said that the average size of farms is going up; increasing from 225 acres in 1987 to 240 in 2002.
Sands then moved on to discussing the future. He said that he has four projections: 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% from the year 2004. He said that the trends are unmistakable: the county is growing. Based on those past trends and the high residential growth in the North Corridor and the growth around the city of Iowa City, they can assume that the County is going to continue to grow at about 5% - 10%. He included the 15% and 20% projections in the unlikely event that those dramatic growth rates continue. He said it is not likely that the county will be able to continue the growth rate. However, he said that barring any unforseen changes to the economy, they are looking at about a 10% growth rate which would put the population at 140,000 by the year 2020. As important as population projections are, they should be used cautiously. Any kind of changes in local, state or national economies can have a profound effect on projections. The rising costs of fuel could also make the smaller projections unattainable. However, he reiterated that barring any unforseen changes in the economy, they will probably have at least a 10% growth rate over the next 20 years.
Sands said that the review of the plan focused on three items: the 1998 Land Use Plan, the plan’s appendix, and a review of the past growth patterns. The analysis basically consisted of the plan’s policies using the quantifiable data, the growth patterns, the maps, a basic review of the plan’s contents and formatting, and a discussion of new planning practices and strategies to further the County’s goals. Sands said that when he took a look at the plan, four main goals stood out to him. They included: preserving agricultural and environmentally sensitive land, focusing growth on the defined North Corridor, continuing growth and services within the fringe areas of cities within the county, and allowing for in-fill development within the defined county villages. He said that within each case, those goals are being met. Growth is occurring in the planned areas, the outcomes of implementing the plan included environmental and ag land protection, reducing sprawl, and shared wastewater and wells. He said that with the new economic development policies of the County, the County is trying to find a balance of land use types, not just residential, but also commercial and industrial, which is a sustainable growth pattern. He summarized by stating that the plan is working as the Board of Supervisors set out to do, with appropriate future growth areas, appropriate smart growth goals and policies, and a usable implementation section which is always important.
Sands then reviewed the plan’s contents. He suggested that Johnson County institute a standing policy where the Board of Supervisors and the Planning and Zoning Commission meet on an annual basis to go over that year’s development just to make sure the plan was working. Sands went on and suggested that the County define rural and urban level of services. He said that right now there is a statement in the plan that says the County will provide a rural level of service, and said that he thought it was important to define that. He also suggested adding a policy requiring interconnected development through the connecting streets and trails, adding the encouragement of conservation subdivision design as the primary development pattern in the county which is currently an option for developers, clarifying residential policy 5.3 which say “residential development near agricultural land uses will provide adequate buffering in order to mitigate existing and potential conflicts.” He suggested this be made more clear, commenting that although they want to mitigate existing and potential conflicts, by possibly having residential land use near agricultural land it may actually do the opposite. He went on to say they want to encourage a network of trails connecting public parks and open spaces throughout the county.
Sands said that one part of the plan’s appendix contains several policies for the transportation corridors. He suggested that these be moved out of the appendix and into the actual Land Use Plan. He suggested that they consolidate the goals and policies into one formatted area to improve readability, and that they delete any goals or policies that have been realized. Finally, he suggested they include an index of all applicable planning maps because a lot of times maps are a lot easier to look at when reviewing development proposals to see if they work with the plan’s vision than going through and reading text. Sands said that the plan’s appendix contains all the Census data which needs to be updated. He said they also would move the County transportation policy section into the actual Land Use Plan, and do some minor improvements to the appendix.
Sands then discussed the planning practices and strategies. He said that right now the County had a village goal promoting in-fill development within the village, but he thought they should expand on that and establish actual growth plans for the unincorporated villages which promote higher density, sustainable mixed use development, including possibly updating the Road Performance Standards. He said that these village plans would better define where development would go, and would establish clear growth standards for the villages. He said that the clustered subdivision design is already an option for the County, but he expressed his thought that this be the primary type of development within rural developments. He said that the protection of open space and environmentally sensitive land is a high priority in the County, and to make that an even stronger priority they need to make this a primary type of development. He said that this type of development better protects the open space and environmentally sensitive land. He said that with this approach it is easier to promote centralized wells and septic systems, and it minimizes infrastructure expenses as well.
Sands said that interconnected development is implied in the current plan, but he thinks it needs to be made a policy. He said that if they can clearly state that new developments should, whenever possible, connect to existing subdivisions, that discourages leapfrog development. He said that this can work with clustered and mixed use developments as well. He said they can develop standards which consider the timing and impact of infrastructure as well. He said that development probably should not take place if infrastructure cannot be extended in a reasonable amount of time over short distance. He said that they would like to establish an Amish cultural overlay district because there are unique cultural practices in certain parts of the County, and the zoning ordinance doesn’t currently allow for that sort of lifestyle, so they want to make those changes.
Sands addressed Swartzendruber’s mention of revisiting the North Corridor definition. Sands said that they still want to maintain a Phase I and Phase II growth area, but possibly reduce the size of the North Corridor area based on build-out scenarios. He said they will want to look at establishing a Lake MacBride watershed protection area, identifying the proposed area and establishing policies to protect that critical resource area. Lastly, they would like to consider establishing a road alignment corridor for future transportation improvements. He said that these corridors should be part of the future land use map. Many road corridors that the Board wants to protect should be made part of the future land use map. He went on to say that they want to include an index of all the planning maps, which would help review development proposals. He showed the audience some examples of those maps, which included transportation corridors, networked trails, public use areas, economic development areas and development constraints, which include flood plains, wetlands, steep slopes, wooded areas etc. He showed an example of an existing transportation corridor map of transportation corridors that the County currently protects for future extensions. He said that many potential new corridors should be mapped and included in the future Land Use Plan. He then showed an example of the Johnson County Trails Plan, and said that it was important that any new development should contain trails and linkages to the Johnson County trail map so that they can have a trail system not only within the county but also extending into the region. He said that it was important that any new development meet the Johnson County Trails Plan. He said that the development constraint maps should be updated and made part of any plan review when reviewing preliminary plats, floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes, and wooded areas.
Sands went on to say that the next step would be to update the plan. Sands said that he put together a process which he saw as the best way to make the process as locally driven as possible. In order to accomplish this, he suggested they hold five visioning town-hall style meetings right at the beginning, much like they did with the 1998 plan to prioritize the possibilities, challenges, and concerns that residents of the County have. The next step would to take those two meetings along with the information from this review, and the County will establish a Land Use Plan Update Committee to oversee the update of the plan. He said that the committee should be appointed by the Board, consisting basically of approximately 18 members. Sands presented a list he had compiled which was designed to create diversity on this committee. The list included members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Farm Bureau, North Corridor, village residents, engineers, farmers, home builders, environmentalists and others. He said that this committee would work on a monthly basis in open work sessions in reviewing the input received from the town meetings, and the review, and would then draft a plan. He said that the committee would be supported by Johnson County staff from Planning and Zoning, Public Health, Engineering and Secondary Roads.
Neuzil asked where Sands saw the Board of Supervisors participating in the process. Sands replied that the Board of Supervisors will be responsible for adopting the plan. He said that throughout the process members of the Board are invited to attend the work sessions, and they will also be provided with monthly updates from these meetings. He said that it wouldn’t hurt to have a Board member on the committee so it isn’t a surprise when they get the plan at the end. Sands said there was more than enough opportunity for the Board to give input throughout the process. Harney said that he wouldn’t mind being on the committee or attending the meetings. Sands said that he could, but that a majority of the Board members could not. He went on to say that the State Code makes it very clear that the Planning and Zoning Commission has a responsibility of putting the plan together and making their recommendation to the Board. He said that therefore they want to give the Planning and Zoning Commission that responsibility, and with the creation of this committee it’s basically the Planning and Zoning Commission and the diverse stakeholders that the County has. He said that he didn’t see any reason why there couldn’t be one member of the Board on the committee. He clarified that the list he presented is not hard and fast, but is there to give a diverse background.
Carr asked whether they would encounter the same problem with the Planning and Zoning Commission if they have all five members on the committee. Sands replied that that would mean it was an official meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Carr asked whether each of these meetings would be official meetings. Sands said that they would. Neuzil said that what happens often is that the Board gets the end product, and then the Supervisors hear from a lot of other residents that are not on the committees. He said that it makes it much more difficult to be able to change something that has gone through the process when the Board gets it at the very end. He said that this is why it would be nice even if the Board of Supervisors is not technically on those committees, that they have the opportunity to have input. Stutsman objected, and said that if this happens it is not really a community project. Neuzil said that he was just thinking about past situations, such as with the Jail Committee, or the past situation with the Anderson-Bogert report. He said that it is difficult to get something at the end without having more ability for the Board to have some say. Sand replied that there was not any question that they would be able to provide input throughout the process. Stutsman said that if Supervisors give input, they are accused of running the plan. Sands said that was a balance they were going to have to find themselves. Neuzil said that ultimately, the Board is in charge of that plan. Sands said that first and foremost what they want to do is make it as locally driven and open a process as possible. He said that by creating this committee and having open work sessions and town hall style meetings, they do that. He said that would allow comments from the Board throughout the process. Neuzil said that he has a vision for the phasing of the North Corridor, and asked when he got a say.
Moore said that they were going to recommend that if the Board liked this process, then at least one Board member should attend each meeting. He said that if the Board members could also attend the Land Use Plan work sessions. Stutsman said she liked the idea of having monthly reports. She said that she didn’t want this to be turned into the Board of Supervisors plan. Lehman said that the Board has the same opportunity as any citizen to lobby the committee to do certain things.
Sands summarized that the process would include town hall meetings, shirette workshops, monthly work sessions with the planning committee, updating the County staff and Board of Supervisors throughout the process, and sending a draft of the plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing, after which time the Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The Board will then have at least one public hearing before the ultimately adopt the plan for resolution. Sands said that the timeline for the project is projected to be 14 months.
Stutsman clarified that ECICOG’s contract was just to review the plan, and asked whether they needed to sign another contract with ECICOG to update the plan. Harney asked who would manage this process in terms of scheduling. Sands said he would facilitate the meetings, but Planning and Zoning staff would schedule and post the information about the meetings. Lehman asked who individuals would notify if they were interested in being on this committee. Sands said they could put a press release in the papers, and interested parties could fill out the application for Boards and Commissions. Stutsman asked Sands about the committee size. Sands said that they wouldn’t want more than 15 people. He said they would want a diverse group, although it could be less than 15. Stutsman said that she thought they needed to have equal representation over the entire County. Neuzil asked how long it took to put together the 1998 Land Use Plan. Sands said it took a few years. Neuzil said he thought that 14 months is too long to revise this plan. Stutsman said that they now have a better understanding of how to develop a Land Use Plan, and she agreed that 14 months is too long. Wilde encouraged citizens to attend meetings. Stutsman reminded people that this was a Land Use Plan for Johnson County, not for the North Corridor. Harney said that the timeline looked good, but hopefully it would take less time. Sands said that they have a sizable chunk of the review done already. He said the 14 month time period was established because they wanted to get public input, town meetings, and open work sessions. He said that these things take time and add months to the process. He said that the adoption process alone could be three months. He said that in order to get the necessary public input it is going to take some extra time, and just to be safe they set out 14 months to accomplish this.
R. Sullivan asked what Sands thinks about having someone on the committee who is not affiliated with any of the interests he described. He said that it would be good to have an Urban and Regional Planning professor on the committee, or someone from another city. Sands said that they had flexibility in terms of who is appointed. Lehman asked what kind of timeline they had to put the committee together. Sands said that they should have the Committee established by April or May. Harney said that the first step would be to sign a contract with ECICOG. Sands said they didn’t want to have the town meetings while the farmers are in the fields. Stutsman said there would be very detailed notes taken of all comments that were made.
League of Women Voters Regional Planning Committee Co-Chair Carol Spaziani said that early last year there was a lot of talk at JCCOG initiated by the County about a Regional Land Use Planning Initiative. She said that after a few meetings it was dropped. She said she recalled a discussion at JCCOG at that time, some of it initiated by R. Sullivan, indicating that perhaps they didn’t need the Regional Land Use Planning Initiative because the County plans to update the County’s Land Use Plan which will involve all entities in that process. She said that in the process that was presented, she doesn’t see any step where there could be a review or an involvement by the incorporated towns or cities Planning and Zoning Commissions. She said that somewhere along the line they should be able to be involved or review it.
Jim McCarragher said that he thought a decision should be made about the contract. He asked whether the contract was available to the public, and whether the public had the opportunity to give input on it. Lehman said that it would be discussed informally at the Board meeting, and then formally. He said there would be a chance for the public during reports and inquiries or to contact the Planning and Zoning staff when it’s made available. He clarified that they didn’t have a contract yet. McCarragher said that he also thought there should be a member of the Board on this committee. Stutsman asked how they would make sure that the one Board member speaks for at least three of the Board of Supervisors members, and not just for themselves. McCarragher said that he would assume that whoever shows up is speaking for the entire Board. Lehman said that is not necessarily the case. McCarragher said that he thought it would be better to have everything on the table right at the beginning. Lehman said that it would be nice to have a unanimous opinion on the Land Use Plan, but that wasn’t necessarily going to happen. McCarragher said that he also didn’t think there should be any meetings before the Committee is formed.
Tom Carsner said that this is the time and place to revisit the 1960 zonings. He said that many current decisions and discussions go back to the 1960 zonings, and he thinks that as a Board they have felt hamstrung by that and completely powerless to do anything about it. He recommended they do a real build-out study, because that’s how you understand that the 1960s zonings are unrealistic as they currently are. He said that as you do a build-out study you begin to understand what that really means as far as all the services. He went on to say that they should also do a survey of current landowners to get some general ideas of what their plans are. He said that they could then begin to create some plans to deal with those current boundaries by creating an overlay district, considering a moratorium, or other ideas. He said that the specifics of the build-out plan would refer to water and sewer usage, police, ambulance and fire services. He said that this is part of talking with surrounding communities about how those services would be affected. He went on to say that one-third of property taxes go to paying for public schools. He said that Solon and North Liberty just built new schools, and school districts needed to be included in this plan. He said they also had to consider human services. Carsner said that he did appreciate some of statistical analysis that’s been done of population and agriculture, and said that they need to take those a few more steps and understand what increasing population rates would do to other factors. He asked whether the current taxes would have to increase to provide these services. He said that it is important to understand all of these things, and that this was the time to do it. He went on to say that they should also include Linn County in the planning. He said that he appreciates the beginnings of the review of this Land Use Plan. However, he said that he hasn’t been coming to these meetings for eight years to stop short of a real Land Use Plan. He said that a real Land Use Plan really takes into account the build-out of what they currently have zoned and what could be the future of Johnson County if all that land was build-out. He said that roads are part of that, but roads should only be considered in a much larger planning process of what they have currently been doing, and this is the time and the place for it. He encouraged the Board to increase the scope of this study so they can really have a discussion of roads and all the other services that would be involved in a comprehensive fashion.
Stutsman asked whether they needed to have a discussion about whether this was going to be a Comprehensive Land Use Plan or a Land Use Plan. She said that this is going to have a tremendous impact on the contract. Moore said that a lot of the things that Carsner spoke about are going to be what the Planning Committee is going to be directed to do. He said that the Committee will give feedback to the Board and the Zoning Commission just how comprehensive they want to be with the update of the current plan. He said that this is the grassroots nature what they are trying to do. So if Carsner wants to come to all those meetings and put forth those ideas to those Committees he thinks that’s a good idea.
Mike Dooley asked who would be responsible for selecting who sits on the Land Use Plan Committee. Sands said that it would be the Board.
Glenn Siders said that the Land Use Plan Committee is a good idea. He said that he was on a committee when the development of the sensitive areas ordinance and the clustered housing ordinance came about. He said that it was a very diverse process. He addressed the concern about the process taking 14 months, and said that whenever you have a citizen’s group it will take longer to do the work than if it was just a governmental body making these decisions. He said that they should constrain the time limit in which it is done. He said that theoretically the plan should be developed by a diverse group of people. He said that it is disturbing to hear a comment that they already know what they want and so it shouldn’t take a long time to do this. He said that concerned him, because it brought into question how much influence the citizens committee would actually have. He went on to say that it is important that the Committee be involved in all the village meetings.
Stutsman said that she was concerned that the Land Use Plan revision would go on for four to five years. She also said that they know they want an update to the Land Use Plan, but she never said that they don’t know what that will include.
Terry Dahms said that he is an excited advocate of trails. He said he has always felt like the lone ranger, and was pleased to hear Sands talk about the interconnected trail system tonight. He said that he hopes that this is pursued. He said that what concerns him is that when they start looking at the new roads in the North Corridor, they start to get creative, but he doesn’t think there is any need for that. He said that part of the plan needs to incorporate a standard design, which should be consistent wherever they go. He said that the North Corridor is unique, and he has tried to suggest repeatedly that the North Corridor is more suburban than it is urban or rural. He said that when they look at the road system out there, part of it has to be a separated trail, and when he hears a paved shoulder called a trail he can hardly contain himself. He said he is really disturbed when a consultant like Anderson-Bogert suggests that it is.
Lehman said that they covered a lot of ground today, and heard some people ask about having a committee in place before starting the meetings. He said his point was that if somebody makes a commitment to attend these things, they want to know that they are the person that’s assigned to do that. He asked about whether they should change their timeline focus. Sands said they didn’t want to have the town meetings at the same time the farmers are in the field, which is why they wanted push the meetings up to a closer date. R. Sullivan said that he thought they could speed the application process up. Harney said that it would take longer to get the information out in rural areas. R. Sullivan said that he thought they should get the process going, and although there will be people who are disappointed that they are not selected, but they can come to the meetings as well. Moore said that the first thing that needs to be done is to have ECICOG submit a contract and see whether or not the Board signs it. Lehman said they would get started on that, revamp an application form, and prepare a press-release to send to newspapers. R. Sullivan said that he’d hate to hang the whole thing up for a week because the Lone Tree Reporter has not come out. Harney asked what the rush was. R. Sullivan said that if they wanted to avoid scheduling it while the farmers were in the field, there was a rush.
Siders said they should reconsider who is going to be on the committee, asking whether they really want the entire Planning and Zoning Commission on the committee. He said that if they were so concerned about the farmers they should have had this meeting a month and half ago. Lehman suggested they work on a contract, work on getting applications submitted, and a week from this Thursday put this back on the agenda so the Board can talk about some of the comments here. Stutsman said she thought that was a good idea. The Board agreed to put this on the agenda a week from Thursday.
Carsner asked whether the Board was going to consider any of the items he had brought up about the build-out study. Lehman said that Carnser made some good points which they could discuss on Thursday. Carsner said that his suggestion was to do a professional study of water, sewer, police, fire, ambulance, and schools. Neuzil said that part of that will be dictated by the committee. Carsner said that this needs to be considered as part of the contract.
A member of the public said that Planning and Zoning was on board no matter what the scope of the assignment. Stutsman said she needs to know how what they are doing differs from a comprehensive plan, and she needs to know what exactly is involved. Sands said there is a difference between a Land Use Plan, which focuses on land use, and a Comprehensive Land Use Plan which focuses on economic development, housing, transportation and other things. He said that the scope of this review is based on the existing Land Use Plan, and the update process is based on updating the existing Land Use Plan. Sands said it was up to the County to decide what they want. He said that right now they have the Land Use Plan, and that was the extent of this review process, was to look at the Land Use Plan and look at that. Stutsman asked if anybody else in the area has done a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Sands said he didn’t know. Stutsman said that she is not opposed to a Comprehensive plan, but it is a big deal so she wants to know very clear what they are talking about. Lehman said they would continue this discussion at a future Board meeting.
Adjourned at 6:13 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary