MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
OCTOBER 6, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Driveway Accesses............................................................................................................... 1
Chip Seal Policy................................................................................................................. 18
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 5:30 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
County Engineer Greg Parker said he emailed the Board the County's requirements for driveway accesses. Stutsman said the requirements were drafted when Doug Fredericks was the County Engineer. Parker said the requirements have definitely been in place since before Mike Gardener was County Engineer. Stutsman asked how long the policy has been in effect. Parker replied the policy has been in effect for almost ten years. R. Sullivan said the reason for the meeting is there have been a number of subdivision applications and rezonings with driveway issues. He said some of the engineering firms have discussed concerns with the Board. R. Sullivan said they are trying to come up with solutions for these planning issues.
R. Sullivan asked Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak how many applications have been received in the past six months that have had driveway issues. Dvorak said three applications. He said some of the applications have already been resolved. Stutsman said there are two applications on the October 9, 2008 Board meeting agenda.
Neuzil said the plan looks good and the new driveway situation is not what concerns him. His concern is with someone who has had a driveway for 140 years, does a farmstead split, where they are doing absolutely nothing different except splitting, and all of a sudden the law kicks in. Neuzil said unless something changes he is going to disagree with the Engineer's recommendation and therefore disagree with staff. He said he does not want to have to do this every time one of these issues comes up. Harney said that because farming has changed there are many applications where farmers want a second driveway for access to bring in a semi-truck within a short distance of the property rather than have it travel clear down to a farm field. He said the County’s policy of requiring the trucks to travel 500 feet down the road can be changed to allow semis in and out of residences. Harney said the County can change the rules so they don't have to maintain the tube and the driveway. He said as long as it meets Secondary Roads requirements, the owners should be responsible for managing and maintaining the road.
Stutsman said she hopes the Board will reach an agreement and give Parker direction. She said there is a policy in place and she thinks the whole Board is frustrated with the different scenarios that have come up. Stutsman said the Board needs to agree on a policy or policy change for Secondary Roads. She said she hopes the Board will come to a consensus so they can all move forward. Stutsman said, in Parker’s defense, Parker is a licensed engineer and he sees things pretty black and white. Stutsman said, in contrast, the Board has to wrestle with some decisions that aren’t necessarily black and white. She said Parker is doing exactly what he should be doing in terms of policy. Stutsman said if the policy isn't working, then the Board needs to give Parker direction.
Meyers said he agrees with Stutsman that Parker is doing his job until if and when he is told to do something different. Until then, Parker is supposed to follow the policy. He said he also thinks that the Board should find some sort of resolution for some of the problems they are coming across. Meyers said Neuzil mentioned farmstead splits, and some farmstead splits involve new construction. Meyers said sometimes it might be right next to the original farmstead. He said he would slice and dice it, as some of the issues will be coming up on Thursday night, October 9, 2008. Meyers said he doesn’t have much of an issue with leaving things as they are, although if it is a farmstead split requiring new construction, he would draw the line there. Neuzil asked if the Board needs to look at new scenarios to see if there is a way to push the policy. He said he knows the Board won't find everything, but if they are just talking about new construction then they should be okay. Stutsman said she thinks there is with that subject. She said she thinks in a residential new construction the policy of one driveway she still supports, and that the County should maintain that.
R. Sullivan said he thinks it is pretty clear that the Board, speaking for all five members, have a lot of sympathy for some of the applicants because they are not big developers trying to make a million dollars off of something. R. Sullivan said it isn't necessarily people who are in every month with zonings and plattings. He said it is understandable that folks aren't as familiar with all the rules. R. Sullivan said that as they were preparing for the meeting, they stood at the counter with Dvorak and Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore, and went through some of the more troubling applications. He said there is a way every applicant could get what they wanted, with just a little bit of negotiation.
Harney said what R. Sullivan is speaking about is true to a point, but he has real concerns. He gave examples about the County realigning the road and putting the driveway where it is now. He said if the County changes that, then the citizens won't have access to their garage because it is all in the County right-of-way. Harney said the ordinance will either have to change the entrance to their garage door or turn their garage. He added they may be grandfathered in for whatever they use. R. Sullivan said, without the Planning and Zoning having to do anything, Dvorak has a possible suggestion of what to address. He said he is concerned about the policy, that although it is strict, it has probably served the Board well except for the five or six outliers. R. Sullivan said the question is if the Board wants to change the policy or do they want to try to fix the five or six outliers. He said if they can fix the five or six, then he doesn't want to mess with them. Meyers said he will have to hear what the solution is for the outliers brought up. He said that if the three or four outliers that has been bugging the Board lately had an answer, he would like to hear what the proposal is.
Stutsman said what is interesting is that the ones the Board is talking about involve farmstead splits. She said farmstead splits weren’t in existence when the policy was drafted. Harney said he thinks Stutsman is right to a point, but that the farm issue with farmers wanting driveways to move semis and heavy equipment in is an issue. Stutsman said what R. Sullivan suggested is that the Board keep the policy, and then when situations come up, they have staff work out a solution.
R. Sullivan said he will admit to being somewhat frustrated. He doesn't blame applicants because he doesn’t expect that they know enough about the process. He admitted he doesn’t know enough, but that he would like to think that between his staff and whoever the engineers on the project are, they can get some of these issues worked out. R. Sullivan said the worst possible solution to the problem is having people who want a driveway come to the Board. He said he doesn’t think there is a worse way to politicize things, and that it is the worst of all possible ends. Stutsman said the best message the Board can send is that they direct staff to work things out. She said the Board likes the driveway policy but she knows there will be those exceptions, especially in a farmstead split situation, where a driveway has been there for many, many years. Stutsman added it is a low traveled road, and there haven't been issues.
R. Sullivan said he wants to check with Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell. Chappell said he doesn’t want to hear about any specific applications that could be subject to a public hearing. R. Sullivan said that is where he was going. Chappell said the Board can have discussions about the policies and proposals, as well as how things are being treated under the current policy. Chappell said, however, to an extent they have a specific application that is going to have a public hearing on it. He said they deal with those during the public hearing and afterward.
Moore said he can give examples. Moore said, as the Board knows, Planning and Zoning staff have supported the efforts to minimize driveway accesses on dirt County roads. He said, looking at Parker’s requirements and being on the job almost 14 years, he has used the accesses the whole time he has been on the job, back to when Doug Fredericks was the County Engineer. Moore said the only thing he will say is that the thing Moore thinks Parker is getting direction from on the policy is the 500 foot separation. He said, to him, if that separation was to be removed from the list, and then renumber one through 14 of the policy, that might give some added flexibility on some of the driveways. Moore said that, normally, when Planning and Zoning makes changes to rules or regulations, if properties no longer conform due to the changes, the property is given the title of nonconformity. He said, however, it doesn’t make it illegal, it just means that it doesn’t conform anymore. Moore said Planning and Zoning leaves that alone until something is done with the property. He said once the property owner wants to do anything with the property, they must conform with the current regulations or policies. Moore said that is what has been happening with driveways that do not meet the 500 foot separation for sight distance. He explained that Planning and Zoning brings them into compliance to the best of their ability. He said sometimes people don’t have the full 500 feet, so they do the best they can.
Moore said his solution is to minimize access points and turning movements to reduce the likelihood of accidents. He said that is what they have been pursuing. Moore said they have had farmstead splits that are doing that. He said his solution is they should leave the farm buildings with that on the farm, so the farm has one access even though the other driveway is only a couple hundred feet away, that lot only has one access point as well. Moore said it doesn’t meet the 500 foot separation rule, but if sight distance is good, then they will have only one access for the farm and one access for the lot being cut off. He said at times, the farmers don't like their lot being cut off, but sometimes there has to be a give and take in true negotiation processes.
Moore said they have looked at a number of applications but Chappell said they can't be discussed at the current meeting. Moore said there are similar situations where they have existing multiple homes that are being cut off, so the new lot has one driveway but the farmhouse that is left on the lot has a driveway as well. He said there are other driveways into the fields that they are trying to reduce. Moore said he believes that if they get rid of the 500 foot separation, the first thing they see is one entrance per residence or field. He said Parker isn’t bound up by trying to follow the 500 foot separation that is there, and it gives Planning and Zoning some flexibility to look at some of the splits. Moore said the one thing that has helped his department the most is that they have asked all the consultants and engineers, before they make applications for one of their clients, to consult with the Secondary Roads Department and Planning and Zoning. He said they can envision what the obstacles and challenges will be. Moore said that Secondary Roads would like to see more of such practices. Moore said if they can give Parker some flexibility with sight distances, then perhaps Planning and Zoning can help some of the people that are trying to do splits.
Harney said the thing about Moore’s points, although he agrees, is that they need to be consistent for everyone. Moore agreed, and said they are concerned about treating everyone fairly. He said this plan gives them that opportunity because under normal conditions an applicant can only have one entrance for their lot. R. Sullivan said one concern he has about getting rid of the 500 foot separation is American Legion Road. He asked if that would create a situation where there is a driveway every 100 feet for every two miles.
Moore said there are multiple lots there. He said now they don’t allow that type of access. He said they either require a frontage road or sharing. R. Sullivan asked if they will still be able to do the frontage road. Moore said they haven’t done so in a long time. He said any subdivisions in the past they have made two lots share one access. R. Sullivan asked if this was the reason they have been able to make the landowners do that. Stutsman said she thinks it is the platting process. Moore said the County Engineer at the time was not in support of that anyway, as it is not good transportation planning. R. Sullivan agreed and said he doesn’t want to see that happen again. He explained that if they get rid of the sight distance, are they setting themselves up for a situation where that can happen again. Stutsman said if individuals come in, they all have to have driveways. She said if it is not a big subdivision, then yes. Moore said they can ask, but normally they don’t do subdivisions like they did right along the road anymore. He said Planning and Zoning believes they can do things through the platting process.
Neuzil asked if Planning and Zoning has been using it as the reason for the policy. Moore said no. Stutsman said these issues are policies and guidelines. She said although she thinks it is good to have guidelines and be consistent with them, it is not like having an ordinance. Moore said it is under the guise of any zoning ordinance, which is the promotion and protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. He said Planning and Zoning knows it is bad transportation planning to allow that many access points and so they try to minimize that. Moore said they believe they can handle all this through the platting process. Stutsman said Harney has been talking about situations with farm fields. Moore said that situation is a little different from what he and Dvorak do for the Board, and that situation is more between Parker and the Board.
Neuzil asked Parker how he would handle the situation if they got rid of the 500 foot sight distance requirement, and an applicant comes to Planning and Zoning through the process. Parker said if there isn’t any separation distance to follow, then someone would come in and discuss accesses that will not be initiated, looked at, or to be concerned with. Neuzil said it will only take place when someone wants to build, and then Planning and Zoning would ask Parker for advice. Moore said the subdivision ordinance for roads requires a minimum of 150 foot separation between road connections. Parker said that is also on roads that are interior roads where the speed limit is 25 to 35 miles an hour. He said speed is a big factor in terms of site distance.
Harney asked if the County removes the 500 feet separation requirement, will it allow the agricultural (ag) access they have asked for. Parker said if there was not a separation distance Secondary Roads must follow based on the policy, there would not be a good reason to deny a request for driveway access, as long as the other criteria are met. R. Sullivan referred to the second requirement for only one entrance per residence/field. Parker said that is what Secondary Roads tries to accomplish, because it can be a safety issue. He said in most his decisions, safety is paramount. Parker said he definitely follows these guidelines. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design guidelines require a site distance of 495 feet for 55 mph. That was rounded to 500 feet. Parker said it gives a cushion and they have allowed that cushion to take place in site distance issues. He said there are a lot of factors that need to be considered when looking at accesses. Parker said the type of traffic, amount of traffic, the way the road lays, and the current capacity and future development possibilities are all examples. He asked if the Board would be less concerned about having an additional driveway on a road with three houses than a road with 500 vehicles a day with future potential development. He said there can also be occupying activity or agricultural activity on the gravel roads so Secondary Roads has to look at the encompassing reasons for allowing any kind of access.
Meyers said he sees this issue as being two different issues. He said one is existing driveways with a farmstead split situation, where there are existing driveways and the County is establishing requirements for changes to take place if just the property lines are being redrawn. Meyers said he sees a brand new access for an agricultural operation as a different issue. He said the site distances for speed were all rated at three and a half feet in height. Meyers said he wonders if consideration should not be given to farm equipment, semis, and combines being taller than a normal vehicle. R. Sullivan said drivers might not be able to see what it is pulling though.
Parker said there has been a lot of discussion about design activities regarding height and AASHTO uses an average scenario with an average individual sitting in an average vehicle with an average height. He said if the access was only to be used for that purpose, with only a tractor and a high sitting individual, then those issues would be considered. However, in most instances there will also be a pickup using the access to drop people and supplies off, lowering site distance capability. He said, in turn, it creates a possible safety hazard for the vehicle coming up over a hill that would expect to see a tractor or similar vehicle.
Neuzil said there are different scenarios being discussed. The meeting is moving into farmers wanting an additional turnaround which Parker deals with rather than Planning and Zoning. Neuzil said one issue is a turnaround becoming a permanent driveway, which the County does not want. He said a second issue is the cost associated with creating the driveway, meeting requirements in terms of the ditch, and who will be responsible for it. Neuzil said those are all things the Board needs to think about. He asked if there is a farming situation where a farmer wants an additional driveway can the County call that something else. Neuzil asked if the County could call it a conditional use, to create a scenario so it can only be used for a specific purpose so it cannot be used in ten or twenty years for development. Then the second requirement would not apply.
Parker said that in most instances the current system is fine. He said when individuals request a driveway, Secondary Roads looks at all the factors when they are applying for the permit and tries to address them, but anticipates that one day in the future, the road will not be used strictly for that purpose. The County has seen in the past that accesses change, which can involve splitting a property for building a house. He said the County is becoming a more urban/rural community. Parker said Johnson County has more rural residents than Linn County. Harney said that is part of the reason why he suggested an agricultural access title. He said when there are splits the driveway does become an issue. Harney said if the path is designated as agricultural access only, perhaps it would need to be removed after the operation ceases.
Dvorak said the problem he has run into during his tenure is when after ten years the owner sells the farms and the buyer does not need a permit to build a house. He explained the building is done by the time Planning and Zoning realizes the house is there. Then Secondary Roads has to go tell them it does not meet requirements because it is an agricultural access. Dvorak said that scenario creates a problem. Harney said another issue is someone putting up an operation who does not need a permit, so it becomes a visibility issue. Parker said, regardless of the reason for installing a driveway, it is his understanding that a permit is required from Secondary Roads to install a driveway in the County right-of-away. R. Sullivan said Harney means the individual can put up a building without a building permit. Harney said once the building is there, they need access. Parker said for driveway accesses Secondary Roads requires the property owner build the driveway. If the owner put a metal culvert in, then the County is responsible for the drainage through the driveway. The actual driveway construction responsibility is put upon the owner.
R. Sullivan said he does not know about other counties, but Linn County is talking about changing their policy to match Johnson County's. He said Linn County has trouble with people not maintaining those pipes. R. Sullivan explained when the landowner has not maintained the culvert, the County has to take them to court. Meanwhile, the road is falling apart. R. Sullivan said Linn County has literally hundreds of cases where the landowner is not doing their part. Parker said no matter where they go, there will be those issues. He said he compiled some costs. He said the County is responsible for driveways that have metal pipes. Parker said it is the property owner’s responsibility to maintained plastic or concrete pipes. He said if the owner has not maintained the pipe, something is impeding the flow, doing damage to the road, or is a safety hazard type, Secondary Roads would ask the property owner to maintain their pipe. Parker said if they do not and it is in the County right-of-way, then it becomes a County responsibility to take care of the issue. Like with everything else, the costs are rising. In 2003 Secondary Roads expended a total of $83,871 on entrances. That figure is only residential and commercial maintenance activities for the pipes the County is responsible for. In 2007, the cost went to $113,700. Parker said the County has more residences than it did in 2003. He said the more access there are, the more residences, the more requests Secondary Roads will have, so the costs will then go up. Parker said from 2006 to 2007, the cost jumped over $11,000 from $102,000 to around $113,000. Parker said in 2004 the cost was $80,000, which was a decrease. He said 2005 increased to $99,000, 2006 was $102,000, and 2007 was $113,000.
Meyers clarified this is work after installment. Parker said Secondary Roads does not install new driveways. The figures are just maintenance on existing driveways that meet their requirements and have a metal culvert. Maintenance Supervisor Kevin Hackathorn said a lot of the driveways that exist on hard surface roads are being brought up to the standard of an eight to one slope, so a driveway needs 30 feet for a six to eight foot pipe to be put in.
R. Sullivan said he does not know how the rest of the Board feels, but that he would be curious to hear if the audience has anything to add on driveways rather than waiting until the end. He asked Chappell if the Board is still under the same caveat that specific pending applications cannot be discussed. Chappell said if individuals have things relative to their particular situation that color their interest in the policy, they can weigh in based on their interest. He said he does not want the Board deliberating on the applications.
Meyers clarified as property owners do not need a permit to build an ag building, if they can build a home on a farm without a permit. Dvorak said landowners have been able to build homes on farms without permits since 1960. He said the State does not allow the County to regulate agricultural buildings or residences on farms as they define them. Dvorak said the only authority he has is to restrict a farmer from building in a flood plane. Meyers asked if it depends on how the County defines a farm. Dvorak said how the County defines an agricultural property. Stutsman said that is now 40 acres. Dvorak said it is 40 acres plus a caveat that the 40 acres is used for agricultural uses. Meyers asked what other counties designate as their size for a farm. Dvorak said in 89 counties that zone, it varies a lot. He said some counties use an income base which he has spoken to the Board about. He said some counties sizes based arbitrarily.
Dvorak said a parcel of ground is 40 acres. He said in 1979 they have changed from ten acres to a quarter-quarter. Dvorak said some use 35 acres because owning a corner lots loses two and a half acres on each side. Dvorak said it varies. It can be as stern as income or it can be loose as acreage. Stutsman said whichever way they go there are pitfalls, because who in the traditional sense of farming, farms 40 acres anymore. She said it is not possible, but then people run smaller, organic farms. Dvorak said the Amish and Mennonite farmers that farm 30 acres. In Muscatine County farmers use ten acres, because they have so many fruits and vegetable stands. Dvorak said it depends on the area. They County has talked about changing their definition and it will probably come up again. He said many people can afford 40 acres even at the agricultural price of $8,000, because a lot in a subdivision can cost nearly as much. Dvorak said some people want subdivision life and some want the rural life.
Former County Engineer Doug Fredrick said for the record, points one and two were not required when he worked for the County. The rest have been in place forever, except for the slopes, which came with Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) regulations for safe driveways for vehicles running off the highway and not sliding into a drive.
Landmark Surveying and Engineering Representative Tom Anthony said that safety is the number one issue in almost all concerns. Dvorak should look at that regardless of the application. Anthony said if there are two existing driveways or even one existing driveway and a new driveway with both driveways meeting the 500 foot site distance, that would not be as serious of an issue as forcing it into one driveway instead of two. Anthony said the safety factor of 500 foot site distance can be met with both driveways, then maybe it lessens the impact the County is concerned with. He said three and a half feet average takes into consideration the person sitting in the driveway itself is looking out to the street both directions to see what is coming. He said the person could be sitting in a car or even on an ATV with today’s farming operations. Site distance wants to consider the worst case scenario. Anthony said Harney brought up the fairness and consistency. However these issues are site specific. Anthony said if the County criteria satisfy the safety issue, then they can include requirements for agriculture or residential issues not related to safety. He said it is site specific, so certain sites seem to lend themselves better to certain decisions. Anthony added he does not think the Board can get into trouble by making site specific decisions. Anthony said he does not think the same consistency level should always be followed, just for the sake of consistency. He said, lastly, if the County tries to make a rule for every time, there is always the chance that it will not work. Anthony said that precludes solutions that could have worked in the negotiation or site specific reviews that could have addressed all the concerns, but could not be used because of a cookbook recipe in place.
Attorney Tim Grady said he represents a few land owners. He would like to see the Board adopt a policy that grandfathers in existing driveways on existing farmstead splits where there will be no construction. The house, driveways, and buildings are already there. Grady said the County has situations where they want to promote splits, but it cannot be done because of their existing policies. He said there are driveways that have been in place forever. One person is able to do a farmstead split, but another is not when there is no change at all to the existing physical location of the house or the driveways. Grady said Moore mentioned there is a policy of nonconformance until a party wants to make changes to a property. He maintained the split could continue to be nonconforming, because there is nothing being done to the property other than the split of some boundaries. It is not changing the use of the property. Grady said, in his opinion, it is depriving an owner of a farmstead split. Grady said he would like to see the Board adopt a policy tonight that grandfathers existing driveways when there is absolutely no change or improvements being made. R. Sullivan noted procedurally, the Board will not adopt anything at this meeting. It is just for discussion. Grady replied that is the direction he would like to see the Board go.
MMS Consultants Representative Glen Meisner said he has come to individual Supervisors when he has been frustrated by feeling the policy was probably too restrictive because Parker did not allow any latitude. He said he told the Board that Parker is the County Engineer, but he wanted to show another viewpoint. Meisner said he knows the Board needs to support Parker in his position. Meisner said as Grady indicated, safety is paramount. He said speed limit is the deciding factor on site distance requirements, which is important to understand. He said he agrees with the numbers the County has and can work with them, which he appreciates. Meisner said one reason for addressing driveways with the Board is he thinks the policy has to be compatible with both the landowner and the County as well as considered safe for the traveling public. Meisner said personally and professionally, each driveway needs to be looked at on its own merit unless the County can come provide a policy that gives Parker some flexibility. He said sometimes a driveway cannot be worked out, so some flexibility is important. Meisner said Parker should have the abilities to analyze problematic driveways. Meisner said the County needs to consider new driveways versus old driveways separately. New driveways are pretty easy, in that they want the 500 foot separation between other drives, he said, unless the best place for a new driveway is at the crest of the hill, which is only 300 feet from a neighbor’s driveway. Meisner said he does not want someone subdividing land to be penalized with a rigid policy that would not allow it. He said one person near Hills actually pulled an application because he did not have the 500 foot separation from another owner across the road.
Meisner said his second point addresses whether two driveways should be allowed, for example, on a five acre farmstead split where one driveway goes to a building and the other to the house. Meisner said the house may have a certain surface that would be crushed by heavy farm equipment or a yard separated by a grove of trees. Meisner said that person is then held hostage because the County wants to get rid of driveways. He said he does not think that is good business so he would like to see Parker have some flexibility in this issue to make those decisions.
Meisner said he wrote down some ideas for the Board to consider if they develop a whole new policy. The Board should consider existing versus new driveways, the speed limit and surface of the roadway, the traffic count, the classification of the road and the turning movements. Meisner said, in summary, he thinks the 500 foot spacing is too restrictive so he would like it removed and the County Engineer to have more flexibility in administering the policy. He said this is the first time he has seen this in writing so he did not realize it was a written policy. Meyers confirmed that Meisner had also been a County Engineer. Meisner said the policy was written after him.
Dvorak clarified regarding Moore’s list that the Board misunderstood that he is not sure he could support an existing driveway that does not meet the 500 feet for a subdivision. He said Planning and Zoning was talking about the distance between the driveways because he has seen subdivisions where over the ridge was an ag driveway within 150 feet. Dvorak said he has some concern about the safety of AASHTO requirements. He said he cannot support that for staff. Meyers clarified that Dvorak could support not having 500 feet between the two driveways, but he has concerns about site distance rules. Dvorak replied it is a personal concern because he has several owners who moved the driveways as there was no reasonable reason not to, which is why the Board did not hear about it. He said just saying there is no requirement concerns him. Stutsman said it seems like this is common sense to look at an application to see how to make it work with safety still the main concern, while not going overboard in following the policy to the letter.
R. Sullivan said Anthony had a good point about the site specific review, but consistency is important in their business even if it leaves some outliers. If the Board does not have consistency, they have nothing. People will disregard their site specifications because of what was done for their neighbor. Stutsman said when the Board can justify a decision versus why the same solution would not work at another site, it gives some leeway. R. Sullivan said he does not want to get far removed from policy because it is a better way to do business than jockeying. Moore said the issue is complex and the Board can make it even more so. The simplest solution is to remove the 500 foot separation between driveways and then let staff work with the applicants to see if they cannot be resolved. Moore said they have already been through some of the scenarios and he wanted to see if they can work them out. He said he does not believe the Board wants Parker to remove the 500 foot site distance requirement. Moore said when a farmstead is split, some people try to give the impression it is still a farm, but it is not. He said it is a residential lot subject to County ordinances and requirements. Moore said they do not get grandfathered. The owners need to conform because they will not always own that property. He said it is the County’s responsibility to ensure that the lot is a safe lot. Not only does it need access, but it needs good access. He said in speaking with the Board, members of his department, Parker and Hackathorn, it is the 500 foot separation that is creating a big problem.
Parker asked if the separation is for existing accesses. R. Sullivan and Neuzil said yes. Parker asked about individuals that do farmstead splits then want to add another access to that split. He said there have been requests for that as well. R. Sullivan said that pertains to the second restriction that specifies one entrance. Parker said there are so many scenarios in each case and there is judgment involved with every decision. He said some property owners cannot reach the other side of the property unless there is other access. Parker said Secondary Roads then brings in the 500 foot rule because there may be a water way, stream, or river that separates it. Parker said in those instances Secondary Roads will allow another access to the property or another road to access the other side. He said regarding the 500 foot separation distance, with how urban the County is becoming, the Board needs to be concerned with how many accesses have entry onto a County road. It has been statistically shown that the more access points, the higher the probability of an accident from a safety standpoint.
Neuzil said, as Parker pointed out, the County has to sway at times. He said there is a reason why the Board is talking about a policy, not an ordinance. R. Sullivan said he agrees with Moore. He said if the Board changed this policy to say 500 feet separation of all new entrances, emphasizing the word new, he would like to see what staff could do working with the engineers and applicants with just the word change. R. Sullivan said in other words, grandfathering in where the County does not necessarily have it with existing drives. Harney disagreed because it eliminates the farmer who wants to have agricultural access. R. Sullivan said he is not going that direction yet. Harney said ag access is part of the issue, so putting ‘new’ eliminates their requests. R. Sullivan said he does not like the idea of one person gaining something rather than moving buildings around within their property to give them the ability to have access. He said he understands a farmer may have to take something out of production. Otherwise the County is guaranteeing that every 40 acres has two accesses, as there is no reason that anyone will have one access when they can have two. Stutsman said yes, unless the Board says they cannot. R. Sullivan replied that is what the Board’s is doing now.
Harney said it is important for farmers because the days of pulling trailers behind pickup trucks to move grain or cattle have gone. He said farmers are now using semis and larger equipment. Harney said the larger equipment is now sitting on the roads so he would rather move it off the road onto the person’s property. R. Sullivan said the owners will have to change their property so they can turn around. Harney said that is what the owners are asking, to go around buildings instead of cutting through yards. R. Sullivan reiterated it would need to be within their property. Harney said that is what owners want. R. Sullivan disagreed saying they are asking for another driveway, another access to the road. He said he is saying the owners should do what they need to on their property.
Anthony said requirement number two says residents or a field. He asked how the Board defines a field. Parker said that may need clarification, because Secondary Roads has not been interpreting that as one driveway for each, as the County’s goal is to minimize accesses. The optimal solution is for an individual to have one driveway to access a house and the field from that same location, because that is one less access the County has to be responsible for. He said Secondary Roads also tries to work with residents to get as many dry fills as possible, to work with residents to minimize their installation expense, and to minimize the purchase of the pipe. Parker said that is the biggest portion of the cost of installing a driveway and maintaining it. Secondary Roads tries to minimize the impact of County expenses for future activities and tries to work with the resident, but that is very difficult sometimes.
Stutsman said for point two, the Board could to write one entrance per residence, leaving the field off. R. Sullivan asked how the County would then treat the fields. Moore said when owners split off the farmstead lot it is no longer part of the farm, so the farm needs access. Moore said it is possible the only access point possible is within 500 feet of the house access. He said that is where his argument has been coming from. Moore said the County cannot land lock a property. He said he does not think it is always appropriate to run farm machinery through a residential lot to get to the fields. He said he thinks farmers should have their own access if it meets site distance requirements and is not a safety issue. Moore said he is thinking of a couple applications that could have an access for a residential lot they created and have an access for the farm.
Neuzil asked if Secondary Roads has allowed a second access for field access if there is a 500 foot separation. He said he believed they had. Neuzil said it sounds as if this situation would arise when the driveway was too close. Parker said when Secondary Roads receives a new applicant, Floerchinger speaks with applicants on the phone, visits the property or sets a flag in the ground to identify their desired access. Parker said Floerchinger meets with applicants, looks at the site distance, and the deciding factors such as road use, amount of traffic, and speed of the road. Then they meet with the property owner to try to work out a location that works while meeting the guidelines Secondary Roads is trying their best to follow.
Neuzil confirmed the County is already allows farmers a second access if they meet point three. Parker said Secondary Roads asks applicants to meet all points, except for one. He explained Secondary Roads is trying to minimize the number of accesses in the County, but they have additional accesses to agricultural fields. Neuzil said the question is does the Board allow Secondary Roads to not require the 500 foot separation on a second turnaround. Parker said effectively that would create a circle driveway. He said there are a lot of requests for that. Stutsman said people request driveways to their shed, their barn, etcetera, rather than using a frontage drive. R. Sullivan said that request is a horseshoe rather than a circle because property owners could create a circle drive on their own property without two access points. Stutsman clarified that would come out the same drive.
Parker said lots of individuals are intelligent about how they operate on their property. For example, an individual on Sandy Beach Road on a residential lot with no agricultural activities requested another driveway for a new garage they wanted to build. It did not meet the requirements, including the 500 foot separation distance, so Secondary Roads told the individual to create the access within their own property. He said that meant the individual needed to situate the access building, outbuilding, or garage differently to accommodate that. Parker said that is an added expense to the property owner. He said it is cheaper to put a driveway access right off the road, because the landowners can build within distance of the right-of-way line, which meets Planning and Zoning guidelines. Parker said, however, in those instances, they say they did not create another access, but basically they are creating a circle drive since sometime in the future they will not want to go onto the County road to access the second driveway. Parker said the individuals will want to access their driveway by their own property, which is effectively what Secondary Roads wants them to do now. He said Hackathorn and Floerchinger have seen about everything that takes place in the County.
Neuzil asked if there is a majority of the Board that wants to allow farmers to put a second access to their field with less than 500 feet of separation. Stutsman said she hates a black and white policy. R. Sullivan said he thinks if the Board says they will allow it, they should count on two for every forty acres in the County, because why would landowners not take advantage of that. He said the County will double their driveways. Parker said Secondary Roads does allow that now as long as they meet the 500 foot separation distance. Stutsman said she does not have an issue with that. Her concern is a one acre lot wanting a driveway out.
Hackathorn said the Board does not want a black and white policy, but they do not want to make decisions on who gets a driveway either, yet it will boil down to making those decisions. He said if there is no black and white, when he meets with land owners, he will have to say it is up in the air because it is not their decision to make. Hackathorn said it could end up back with the Board making the decisions. R. Sullivan said the Board will have to decide on every driveway again. Parker said it would make staff’s job difficult. It is very easy for staff to follow the policy. Parker agreed there are some instances where there could be flexibility. He said that they have to look at each case separately, which he said is frustrating. Parker said he knows the Board understands that, but that it is also frustrating for the residents when the staff tries to explain.
Stutsman said that for the applications the County was fussing with, Planning and Zoning had viable suggestions and alternatives that worked out. She suggested a policy, then giving staff leeway to work out issues. Harney said he sees a difference between a farmstead split driveway, than he does with the agricultural operation where they could utilize it. Stutsman said she sees a difference too. She said, like Moore said, a farmstead split is no longer an agricultural residence. Stutsman said the Board has seen too many times where landowners say the development will be agricultural and then it is not.
R. Sullivan reiterated the only change he would like to make is to add the word new in point one and then they can work out all their other issues. He said it does not allow a farmer to put in driveways wherever they want, but he does not want them to be able to. He said the Board could see what happens, then revisit the issue after a certain amount of time if the Board does not think it has been adequate. Neuzil said he does not disagree, but clarified when a farmer wants a second access that has the required separation the County would give them that. Parker said the County has gotten requests for driveways on a daily basis recently. He restated when someone requests an additional driveway or a driveway on the fringe of their property, Floerchinger compares it to the requirements Secondary Roads has been following. If it meets the guidelines, he brings it to Parker, says it meets the criteria, and Parker will sign it and approve it. Neuzil clarified what they are talking about are farmers requesting an additional driveway where there is not the 500 foot separation. Parker said they have requests where residents would like an access less than the required separation. He said Secondary Roads tries to minimize the amount of accesses. In reference that does not mean the County will allow someone to have an access every 500 feet. Parker said Secondary Roads tries to discourage that by making sense of why they want the access. He said he wants to know if the individual really needs that many accesses. Parker said Secondary Roads has to consider the safety issue and how it will impact the road. He said he needs to know if the resident wants the additional accesses because they will subdivide it sometime in the future.
Neuzil said, in response, the Board has not encountered that situation because staff has been able to handle those situations. Parker said staff has done a great job. Neuzil said right now the main issue is farmers wanting to be adding an additional driveway without the 500 foot separation. He said the question from the Board is whether the Board wants to change the policy to allow less than 500 feet. Neuzil said R. Sullivan does not want to change the policy. He asked if that is the issue. Parker said he does not think there is a separation issue other than with existing driveways. He thinks that has been the biggest conversation point recently. Neuzil clarified that is someone adding an additional driveway where they do not have enough separation. Parker said yes, in distance separation from an existing access they already have. Neuzil asked if the Board wants to change the policy or not. Parker said the biggest conversation point seems to be the separation between existing accesses that meet the other criteria. He noted the 500 foot separation distance also includes intersections.
Stutsman said the Board has talked for over an hour and she does not think they have changed anything. She said the meeting is to come up with workable solutions. Putting in the word new will not be of benefit. R. Sullivan said he is convinced these issues are solvable. He said that to be completely honest, he finds it frustrating. The Board is holding the current meeting because so many things cannot be done, but after talking to Dvorak and Moore, he feels they can be. R. Sullivan said he feels people can get what they want, given the Board’s existing policies. Meisner asked if he could make a comment about adding the word new. He said if there was only one driveway to an 80 acre farm running north to south they cut the house out and need to put in a new driveway, but the only place on the whole quarter mile is only 300 feet away because of a train line. R. Sullivan replied he thinks the answer is, as Moore said, that the split created a new lot that, by law, has to have access. Stutsman said what they are saying is that the farm doesn’t have access. Meisner said the farm will not have access. R. Sullivan said you cannot create a lot without access. Harney said they would be closer than 500 feet. R. Sullivan said that is correct, but the County would have to make an exception to permit access like Parker does when there is a river. Meisner said if the County adds the word new, then they would not allow it. R. Sullivan said they already have sites where this physically and geographically cannot be done.
Dvorak reemphasized there are engineering firms that come work with the County before filing an application, but some submit the application and worry about the problems later. Dvorak said Planning and Zoning wants to try to resolve them to the best of their ability before the application, so the clients know what they will face. Moore said if the Board adds the caveat that the farmstead split lot and the original farm both get an access, trumping the 500 foot separation requirement, new accesses would be permissible if they meet site requirements. R. Sullivan said that is State law.
Parker said in most similar situations Secondary Roads allows a 44 foot wide access for multiple users that will allow access to the farm field where a house may be built in the future. The original house would use the same access point. Parker said if the site cannot meet the 500 foot separation, they combine the access. He said they will have access to their property as the Code requires. Parker said they have had great success with it. Parker said some individuals do not like the idea. There are two businesses on Highway 965 with a combined access who are complying with it and it is working. He said that is one of the multiple solutions Secondary Roads considers to try to minimize access points and solve the issues. Meisner said for cases where there are buildings or a grove of trees so the resident cannot use one driveway, he would not like to see the word new added. R. Sullivan said if residents draw their property line in the right place they are guaranteed access. He said the Board has had people in his tenure who have condemned their way out because they created lots that blocked them in. Meisner said the Board is trying to come up with a policy that prevents that type of thing.
R. Sullivan said he sees many potential issues being opened countywide. What he wants, ideally, is to address certain situations in which residents deserve certain outcomes. He said he thinks the County can accomplish that without big changes to the policy. Parker asked if consideration should be given to those existing accesses from a separation distance, giving Secondary Roads flexibility to look at them. He said the ultimate goal of the requirements is to minimize the number of accesses, not create more. Parker said everyone knows with more residents moving into the County that there will be more accesses. He said the ultimate goal is to minimize accesses and maximize safety on County roads. Stutsman said that should be the first policy written down. R. Sullivan agreed and asked where the Board wants to go, if anywhere.
Planning and Zoning Commission Member Bob Saunders said Dvorak’s point is valid because problems are created when the engineer does not come to the staff before submitting the application. Saunders said when the engineer applies without asking the staff, knowing it is within violation of the policy, then they should not be surprised when the Planning and Zoning Commission says they will not support it. Especially when the Commission learns applicants have not asked staff about it. Saunders said the problems that have arisen lately have mostly been around farmstead splits. He said when creating a farmstead split, the lines can be drawn wherever they want. Saunders said applicants could shift their line so it does not become a problem. There are a couple situations where there are already two driveways and the applicant wants to keep using both driveways. That is an issue why this meeting is occurring. He explained there are already two driveways and the applicant does not want to stop using both. Saunders said if both driveways are in use and they are safe, it makes sense to let the resident continue using them. He said it is frustrating to the Commission to have a policy engineers have not even looked at yet. Saunders said he thinks the problems can be eliminated by redrawing the lines on the farmstead splits. He said it is not farmers putting on the farmstead splits so they will eventually be sold to people who have nothing to do with agriculture, but want a house in the country. He said with multi-driveway situations an interior driveway will be created anyway to go back and forth. Saunders said from the Commission’s standpoint, engineers need to talk to staff before putting on paper except a sketch to ask what the problems would be. He said if it is a simple solution like redrawing a line, that is a lot less hassle than changing an entire County policy.
Neuzil agreed, but said there are scenarios where a person wants to keep their existing horseshoe and right now staff is saying they have to get rid of one. Saunders said the Commission feels if they are existing and both are being used, then there needs to be a method to make it happen as well. He said it depends on why they want the split. Saunders said if an owner wants an access to the buildings and an access to the house during the split of two, three, or four acres, in most cases that is sold to a separate individual. He said the new owner would not want farm buildings anyway.
Saunders said if a grove of trees or a creek is in the way, the owner can reshape the lot so the grove of trees does not become part of the issue. He said the Commission has been sympathetic to the cases where two driveways are being used. Saunders said the Commission’s feelings is if the County Engineer says both the driveways have proper site distance for the entrance, then that is their biggest concern. He said if the individuals have been exiting those driveways for the past 50 years, which still have good site distance, that is not likely to change in the next 50 years. Saunders said the Commissions hands are tied because they cannot make policy. He said the policy is a guideline that the Board can change as often as they want. Saunders said because the Commission cannot, they forward the issues to the Board. He said that does not mean the Commission always agrees with the policy, but they are not a policy board. Saunders said it would be helpful to the Commission to let them know if the County Engineer says it is fine, then it is regardless of the policy. He suggested giving Parker some flexibility to make those recommendations.
Harney said there is quite a variation in driveways given the landscape and buildings. He said many of these issues could be solved through communication and cooperation between departments. Harney said Public Health should be involved in farmstead splits. He said at least three applicants required a septic system before it was subdivided because it will be transferred. There was no discussion with other departments of where the driveway would come in because the driveway could have gone where the septic system was put in. He said now the owner cannot put the driveway there without tearing it up. Harney said that situation happens often. He said the County needs to work on the communication problems between departments as to what has to be done with these splits.
Meisner said there are still situations with existing driveways, sometimes even put in by the County in a construction project. Now during the planning process, one of the accesses has to be removed and the other combined for two separate houses.. He said that is why he does not think every situation can be handled by policy. R. Sullivan said that if those two houses are split, sitting on separate lots, then the law says they have to have an access. Meisner asked why the County would take one away. R. Sullivan said they would not. Meisner said that is the way the policy has been implemented. Stutsman said 500 feet is a sizable distance. R. Sullivan said the County does when they can. He clarified whether Meisner means when the owner creates two separate lots to sell one, the County would require an easement. Parker said the County has been requesting a shared access. Then an easement has been created beyond the right-of-way line so it can be split to wherever the property owner would like to reverse their vehicle. Meisner asked why it was not done when the road was built. He said he did not talk to staff about that because he thought it was a given.
Harney said he sees two questions the Board needs answered. He said the first is whether they want to put the word new in the policy and secondly, whether they want to do away with the 500 foot separation. Parker said Sand Road is the only road where Secondary Roads did a complete road rebuild during his tenure. Parker said in that project Secondary Roads met or exceeded the driveway guidelines during design activities and worked with the property owners to make sure those issues were covered during the design phase. Parker said he does not know when the AASHTO guidelines were last changed, but the site distances have probably changed in the last ten years.
R. Sullivan said Chappell sent a draft policy allowing the use of chip seal as a dust control agent, which the Board needs to discuss. Harney said he did not recall reading the issue of maintaining a good service area. R. Sullivan said he caught that as well. Chappell asked Harney what he was referring to. Harney said the resident patching bad spots when it starts to break up. Chappell said he has notes from the last meeting they had, where he tried to summarize salient discussion points. He said the draft is meant to lay those points out. It is not an endorsement or meant to indicate there are things that could not be changed or made better. He said, in all honesty, it probably would have been more useful to have gotten it to the Board sooner. Chappell said he suspects there will be a number of issues. If the Board wants he has a list of things to consider he could go through quickly. Chappell said he knows Parker probably choked on his coffee when he saw the reference to the County taking over the chip seal. However, one of his notes clearly says that if the classification of the road were to change, then at that point the County will decide whether to take over the chip seal road. Chappell said he thought three years would be reasonable. Chappell said someone might be able to find the money to pay for one year, but three years would provide an established base. He said at the previous meeting, there was difficulty keeping the two discussions separate: the chip seal policy as dust control, and a Planning and Zoning discussion about chip sealing more roads for development. Chappell said at the meeting they decided it was best to separate those two issues. Chappell said the Board’s real concern and interest was in allowing chip seal as a dust control method. R. Sullivan said he started this project in 2005 and he thinks Chappell has done a great job, because there has been discussion all over the place. He said this is the best synthesis he has seen. Dvorak said he agrees 100% and sympathizes with Chappell because when Planning and Zoning read it, they thought it was chip seal for development purposes so they were confused. Dvorak said it is a very good document except for a couple items. Stutsman asked Chappell for points to direct the Board’s attention. Chappell said after hearing his list, perhaps the Board will think of questions to ask.
Chappell said the Board should pay close attention to regarding whether it is the way they want it or questions raised by the policy. Chappell said the first is the length of the chip seal application. He said he used 250 feet from either side of a driveway as a basis meant to match the existing dust control policy. Not the Safety Program, but there is some overlap there as well. He said the engineers may say they need more or less than 250 feet when using chip seal instead of calcium chloride, but that is where the number comes from. Chappell said there are many references to the County reserving the right to make certain determinations. He recommended the County in that regard would be the County Engineer. He said he assumed that was the case, but wrote it that way as general policy. Chappell said based on the hour and forty-five minutes spent talking about driveways, the Board may want to consider whether the Board will have the County Engineer make those decisions and whether there should be an appeal process built into the policy. He said he does not think the Board would want one, but they should think about it ahead of time. If the Board has anything beyond relying on Parker’s judgment, then they will have meetings like tonight’s driveway discussion in spades. People will be wanting to nickel and dime the distance and number of applications.
Chappell said there is discretion that can be exercised in filling the gaps requiring additional applications, requiring right-of-way, etcetera. The policy is written to allow those things and not require them. Chappell said the language has a great deal of use of the word may instead of shall. He said that means the County Engineer has a lot of discretion. He said the Board needs to be prepared for that. Chappell said the County takes over maintenance of the chip seal road after three years. He said three is not a magic number and is arbitrary. Chappell said he did not want one year because someone might find the money to chip seal it for one year if they know the County will take it afterward. Chappell said three years seemed like a serious commitment with three years of oil to provide a base. The engineers may say a base would require five years or if it should be based on the commitment to cover the cost they could specify five or even ten years.
Neuzil asked when Chappell says three years if it is only when the County decides to fill the gaps and chip seal the entire road. Neuzil clarified Chappell was not talking about every driveway because that is up to the resident. Chappell said his notes indicate the Board talked about whether this would be a change in classification. His notes indicate the Board did not want any change in classification unless the chip seal went node to node, which is consistent with what the engineers have said. Chappell said his thought was after a classification change, then they would accept it as a chip seal road and put it into their program. He said that was his attempt to combine those two. Chappell said it only applies when it is contiguous from node to node.
Stutsman clarified if node to node meant from one hard surface road to another hard surface road. Chappell said no, it meant from one intersection to another intersection, which is why there is some relation to the development, but not a lot. He said as Planning and Zoning would say, node-to-node in the middle of nowhere would not get past the Road Performance Standards because a chip seal surface still has to lead to a paved surface. He said that is why this truly is a dust control policy rather than what Planning and Zoning wants, which is more of a development policy. Chappell said that is how he interprets node-to-node. Harney asked how they get past the upgrade standards that require a chip seal road. Chappell said a chip seal road is just a gravel road with chip seal on it. Meyers said there is a macadam base. Chappell said they are not talking about macadam, they are discussing dust control.
Parker said taking over these roads after three years would cause a major cost overhaul. He said it needed to be included because it is good to talk about those things. If that is the way the Board wants to go, then they should. Stutsman said people will be getting very creative to make sure the seal would be contiguous. Parker said there are already counties that allow oiling as part of their dust control program. Parker said this would be something to be added to the County’s dust control program giving another option for residents. However, there is discretion in that because the County does not want a 500 foot selection followed by 50 feet of gravel the entire length of these roads. Then the question rises of who picks up the difference. Parker said he has typically seen residents on either side split the difference and pay for it, otherwise they get calcium chloride.
Chappell said his next note is the County would have the discretion to require a longer application than the 250 feet on either side. He said he would not say these numbers are arbitrary, but if there are two or more applying residents within a half mile of each other then based on 2,600 feet, there will be at least 1,000 feet of chip seal surface. Chappell said he wants the County Engineer, depending on the size of the gap, to require it to be filled if it is small enough, like less than 200 to 300 feet. He said the language is designed to allow Parker to require the gap to be filled. Chappell said his notes indicate the Board was not concerned with gaps in the chip seal on a rock road in a truly rural area, even though Parker may not agree. He said the concern was more if there are multiple applications within a relatively close area, the County would want to close them in. Chappell said based on timing the County Engineer could say there are two individuals on a half mile stretch with 500 feet between them. Chappell said the County Engineer could say 500 feet is tight enough that he wants the gap filled in, requiring each to pay for an additional 250 feet. He said the owners then get the chance to say whether they agree. Stutsman asked if it is assumed that the County will pick road maintenance up after three years. Chappell said the three years only applies if they have applications node to node, which in most cases would be a contiguous mile. Chappell said it will not always be that way. Neuzil asked how many feet are in a mile. Parker said there is about 5,280 feet in a mile, with 2,640 feet in a half mile.
R. Sullivan asked if an owner who has 500 feet done for two or three years with a neighbor close enough to leave a gap of 150 feet, will Parker be able to ask the original applicant to pay the extra or does the second applicant pay for the gap. Chappell said there is no original applicant, every year the resident is a new applicant. R. Sullivan clarified that the first and second year a resident pays for their own property, but the third year their neighbor joins the program so they are assessed a different amount to fill the gap. Chappell said potentially. Meyers said then the three year timeframe would get skewed because one property could have had oil for three years, while another had oil for only one. Chappell said there needs to be a contiguous node to node section for three years. He said the clock will not start ticking until everyone in involved. Parker recommended not following that suggestion. Stutsman asked Parker what he would suggest. Parker said Secondary Roads discussed the three year clause. The County has several wealthy subdivisions on gravel roads that would be happy to pay for a mile and a half of chip seal for three years until the County takes it over. Stutsman said she can think of individual residents that would also be willing to pay as well. Chappell said that was what was asked for.
Meyers asked what is involved in changing a raw gravel road to chip seal. Parker said if the Board is only looking at adding another option for residents to put a type of dust control down that could be included as one of the items the residents can pay for to put an MC-70 and oil on the roads. Parker said typically oil is applied and sand is put over top of both. He explained the gravel is rough enough to where the oil would go in. After several applications it looks relatively like an asphalt road, but it is not. Meyers clarified in the first application on regular size gravel, they add oil and then some sand. Parker said correct, so it does not track up in the vehicles. Meyers asked how long the oil application is required. Chappell said the way it is written is one application a year, and then if residents want another application the next year, they pay for it. Meyers asked when it gets to the point where Secondary Roads lays some oil and pea gravel like they do now. Parker said the first application will just be oil and sand. The second year will probably be the same thing. The third year may require adding some chip to it. Parker said it depends on how the road lasts. This would be something residents would have to reapply for every year. He explained it is a gravel road with another option of dust control.
Neuzil asked if residents would have to apply whether the road needs it or not. Parker said yes whether the road needs material put down would be determined by Hackathorn annually. Neuzil said he understands that, but he wants to know if after two years of oil applications in front of their home if it is still doing well, if they need a new application in year three. Parker responded no. Harney said if only oil and sand are put down over gravel, it will be gone the first winter with the snow plows. Parker said that is a possibility, which is why they need to reapply. Neuzil said they are not talking about chipping the road. They are just talking about putting oil on top of the gravel.
Harney said this is not a chip seal policy then. Chappell said that is something the Board will rely on Parker for. He said providing that information is built into the certification process. Chappell said during the calcium chloride certification process, Parker tells them what the mix needs to be. He said if Parker is going to approve vendors he will tell them what the chip seal will consist of. Chappell said he does not know if the specifications of how much rock or sand to put down is something the Board wants to discuss now. Parker recommended specifying types of oil vendors could use. R. Sullivan agreed, saying it would be like other County forms of dust control. Stutsman said she would like, in bold letters that this is at the discretion of the County Engineer as far as what is applied for and when. The County always has people being mini engineers saying the road does not need an application this year.
Parker said Hackathorn determines what the roads need each year and has residents who are not happy when he tells them they need to put 100 feet down. He said he is sure the Board has received phone calls about it. Parker said Hackathorn does a great job of only putting down what is needed because everyone has seen oil prices go through the roof. With this type of process, people may think they like calcium chloride better. Parker said seal coat will be expensive. Meyers asked for an estimate of the cost. Hackathorn said the County’s program costs $3.20 a foot. Parker said that cost was for the summer of 2008, not 2009. Neuzil asked if that is the same material the County will tell people to use. Parker agreed. Neuzil said he asked about the material because it would be nice to be the product the County would use if they incorporate the road into a chip seal County road.
Parker said there are three different kinds of oils residents can use: the cutbacks, the MC-70, the MC-800, and the MC-3000. They are all different options that work and can be used. He said some years the MC-70 may be more or less than the MC-3000. Stutsman said the meeting should not go into those details. Parker said having the different oils gives residents flexibility based on cost. Meyers asked if $3.20 a foot is the cost for the top coat on County chip seal roads. Parker said correct, which was one application with no road preparation. Typically on those Secondary Roads blade patches those roads, sends a motor grader out, and fills the pot holes with hot mix before the seal coat is put down. He said Secondary Roads preps the road, so the cost is the oil.
Neuzil asked how much 500 feet in front of a residence would cost. Stutsman said it is $1,600. Neuzil said he did not know if they were any other measures. R. Sullivan said there could be additional costs for patching or similar activities. Stutsman said the County would not charge for those procedures. Parker said these are considered dust control activities. In many counties they will rip the oil off every year, putting new oil on the next year. He said the kicker is Secondary Roads does not typically put oil down until July or August. Parker said another determination is whether the County lets the oil sit over the winter or if they blade it and rip it every year. He said there are different ways to handle it.
Hackathorn said with the floods, Secondary Roads is late on their chip seal this year. He said the County finished theirs in the end of August 2008. Hackathorn said residents are getting sprayed today and others have asked if they can defer to 2009. Hackathorn said they are making that exception in 2008, because it is late in the year and there is a possibility it will be plowed off. Hackathorn said they will try to be careful, but that can happen. R. Sullivan asked why the County would rip the road annually, unless someone does not pay. Hackathorn said if there is not a base under it, he can't guarantee it will need another coat the next year. Parker agreed, adding it could be three years in a row or more. R. Sullivan said he understands that, but wants to know why ripping it ever benefits anyone. Chappell said unless the Board really wants to make a decision tonight, then maybe the Board can give Secondary Roads time to come back with a more thorough reaction.
Neuzil said he worked at a place with gravel and chip seal so saw the progression of that. He said the first couple of years of applications on Napoleon Street were really difficult, but after the fourth or fifth year it was great. He said at first there were a lot of holes but now the road keeps in pretty good shape. Harney asked if Chappell could finish his details. Stutsman agreed, asking Chappell what they need to discuss and what feedback he needs. Neuzil said his point is whether the amount of years should be raised to four or five. He asked if staff would consider a longer time frame for potential investment, particularly if a subdivision does create a node. Hackathorn said his concern is the roads already in the County. He said if the County brings these roads in at three, four, five, or eight years, what that would mean for roads like Anchorage Road, Polk Avenue, and Mohawk Road that have been in a similar program for upwards of 20 years. He said there are a lot of roads paying for their own maintenance right now.
Meyers said Anchorage Road is one the homeowner's association pays for. He said the question is if the County would take over maintenance of that road. Neuzil said the County potentially would if they wanted to designate it as an official County chip seal road. He said there is nothing that says the County has to. Neuzil asked Chappell if that was correct, that it was still up to the County if a node was created. Chappell said as written, one would anticipate if there was a contiguous node to node section that the County would take care of it. That is something the Board can change. Neuzil said he still sees this as it is written, as the ability to reduce the amount of money spent. He asked if the County can put down less gravel because someone else is paying for chip seal. Parker said gravel roads are the cheapest to maintain and if the County increases the level of surface, the cost goes up. Pavement is the most expensive when looking at the cost of construction and maintenance.
Parker said there are a number of factors the County should consider in taking over roads. Traffic should be a big factor. He asked if there are 50 vehicles a day, if the County would consider taking responsibility for it. If there are 600 vehicles a day, would the County consider it. Neuzil said he cannot imagine that after 35 applications it would require a large investment. Hackathorn said in the spring of 2008 Secondary Roads had one road with frost boils west of Tiffin. Neuzil said he is not saying that does not happen. Hackathorn said the residents paid for the whole procedure, including 15 tons of asphalt patch. Hackathorn said residents on roads like Anchorage Road when it was built said they would take care of all the costs. However, then they came to the Board before the current Supervisors time to ask what the County was doing for them so now the County patches them. Neuzil said if the County takes over one of these roads after ten years if the one year it needed to be fixed they would not have had sufficient savings in gravel, staff time, gas to relocate trucks, and other factors to cover the cost. He said he still thinks the County wins, especially on a road that has been established for five years. Parker said in some instances, Neuzil’s speculation may be applicable. However, on stretches where the County would take responsibility for it, the level of service may change, especially in winter. Neuzil said that is fair to factor in. Parker said for example, Secondary Roads would have to send a truck with a spreader instead of a motor grader out for maintenance.
Stutsman said she would like the contiguous policy to say it is based on a number of factors, rather than just that the road has been contiguous for three years so the County has to take it over. Stutsman said the County needs to consider the Road Performance Standards and what the traffic patterns are. She asked why the County would want to take over a road like Anchorage Road, which is basically a dead end. Meyers said if the homeowners association is paying for the upkeep, why would the County want to pay for the upkeep.
Stutsman asked why all the taxpayers in the County should pay for the upkeep of a dead end road. She said the Board needs to decide rather than a carte blanche the County will take over the road after three years. She said people will be very creative in getting the node to node contiguous if they know the County will take it over in three years. Neuzil said it could be more than three years. Chappell said the three years is a Board decision, which they can change if they wish. Stutsman said she does not care even if it is fifteen because there are some roads the County should take over. Neuzil said for those roads that are already established, they will require minimal maintenance compared to what would happen if Secondary Roads tore them up and had to gravel every year. He said he still thinks it is a win. Plus the land value of the homes may go up with a better surface road. Parker said it would make it more desirable to live on. Neuzil said if the value increases, maybe the County will get a better investment of taxes. He agreed it is a frustrating situation for residents who have previously paid for their roads when now there is a scenario where the County may actually pick up the bill. From his own experience, it should be five years instead of three so it is better established.
Chappell said right now there is no minimum gap size that would automatically require filling it, but instead it is left to the discretion of, presumably, the County Engineer. He said the Board may want to specify the largest amount of feet allowable before it needs to be filled. Chappell said that would provide less discretion, but more guidance to the taxpayer. Chappell said the policy enables the County to require the donation of right-of-way if it is within a growth area or a contiguous half mile of chip seal. The idea is eventually there will be enough chip seal in a row or area, or chip seal in an area to encourage growth because the next step presumably, would be a macadam base rather than chip seal as a dust alleviation surface. Chappell said those are suggestions based on what he heard at the last meeting. He said the half mile is what he considered reasonable when he wrote it.
Chappell said if the County adopts anything like this policy, he thinks they need to update the snow policy to indicate how all of the roads will be dealt with. He suggested the policy specify paved roads will be treated one way, chip seal roads are treated in another way or like paved roads, and gravel roads are treated in another way and gravel roads with intermittent portions of chip seal or contiguous stretches of chip seal no longer than a half mile are treated in yet a different way. Chappell said maybe it would be treated the same as a gravel road, but whatever they decide needs to be spelled out. He said by having a policy and following it is where the County gets their immunity when it comes to snow and ice removal. He said if the County is going to have anything other than it does currently, they need to spell out how the roads will be treated. He said he has already expressed his concerns about the state of their snow policy given some of the County roads have ended up differently. Chappell said in all fairness, the Board should give Planning and Zoning and Secondary Roads time to react in writing if they want to. Chappell said in the meantime the Board can think more about some of the issues.
R. Sullivan said there is a committee Harney and he sits on with those departments, so it could be discussed in the committee if the Board prefers. He said he does not have a strong preference. Stutsman asked if the committee has seen a draft. R. Sullivan said they have seen it, but have not discussed it. He said the County is closer than they were. Parker said Chappell brings up an excellent point regarding the snow policy. He said he has discussed it with Hackathorn since he started at Secondary Roads. Their plan was to modify the snow ordinance after they saw how this policy would fold into their operational activities.
Parker said, as a side note, they have been looking at cost. He said it is $3.20 a lineal foot for seal coat. For Secondary Roads to lay gravel would require between 200-300 tons of rock per mile. Hackathorn said that would be in a mild year. This year required between 400 or 500 tons of rock. Parker said that would be the average cost per mile his department puts on and a delivery of rock is $12 a ton. Parker said the cost for that amount of rock on a gravel road is $.68 per foot. Parker said from a cost standpoint, it is cheaper, but there are different operations for levels and surfaces.
Meyers asked how many times a year Secondary Roads does applications. Parker said they do their route contract in the spring. Secondary Roads adds rock as needed throughout the year. Parker said those are things the County needs to look at from a budgetary standpoint. They also need to consider the need, the amount of traffic and type of traffic. Meyers asked if it was $.68 per foot. Parker said it is 300 tons per mile times $12 dollars a ton to the site, but that does not include having the motor grater to blade it. He said that is the same for the oil because the cost is the application of material, not the preparation. Dividing by 5,280 feet the lineal foot price is $.68. Meyers asked how much it costs for dust control the County currently uses. Hackathorn said calcium chloride costs $360 for 500 feet. Parker said it is about $.72 a lineal foot, so it is $360 for 500 feet applied spring and fall. Stutsman said when the committee reviews the policy she needs numbers on what it will cost the County. She said somehow the committee needs a cost estimation if they decide to take on Anchorage Road after five years. Stutsman asked what the big picture will be.
Hackathorn said the County has been running a losing game on the oil. He said Secondary Roads has fallen behind every year. Hackathorn said he went $40,000 over in 2008. Stutsman asked where Secondary Roads will get the money for that. Parker said it will come down to what Secondary Roads will not get to. Stutsman said that residents want this program, but the bottom line is whether the County can afford it. R. Sullivan said that may be a separate piece. Stutsman said she cannot approve a policy unless she knows what it is going to cost the County. Neuzil said the County will not know, particularly if the Board chooses five years. He said the County will lose on a few of the roads, but he still sees them gaining if residents invest over a five year period because there are so many roads where it is possible. Neuzil said this would be in addition to the fact that the surface is at least established and will only then be spot treating. He said beyond that, it is hard to figure out what the spot treating is going to be.
R. Sullivan said the Board should consider whether they want to take the roads over or just allow people to use seal coat. Stutsman agreed and said the Board should allow people to participate, but forget about the County taking over the road after three years. R. Sullivan said that is a discussion the Board can have. Stutsman said the other policy question involves roads like Anchorage Road. Stutsman asked if the County would take over those roads. Parker listed Stewart Road, Cosgrove Road, Dingleberry Road, Fox Lane, and Mohawk Road. Meyers said the homeowners association seemed happy to pick up the cost. Parker said Secondary Roads just made an agreement with Newberry Road and Oak Avenue South. Neuzil said the advantage for incorporating the roads is not having to negotiate with those groups anymore. Neuzil said that is one advantage of the County incorporating ownership of the investment the residents made.
Stutsman said the Board needs to know what it will cost. She said she thinks it will cost the County a lot of money. However, the Board does need to weigh the gravel versus seal coat. She said ultimately if the County will take over a lot of the roads, they need to be cautious. Neuzil said then it is up to the Board to determine what their investment for quality of life is. Stutsman said the Board will also have to respond to the taxpayers when the rural side of the budget goes through the roof.
R. Sullivan asked if everyone is comfortable having the committee consider this and bring a recommendation back to the Board. R. Sullivan said Chappell would review the committee’s recommendation. Parker asked Chappell if he wanted to be on the committee. R. Sullivan said the six committee members can meet afterwards. Neuzil said it would be nice to have it in place by the end of the year so residents would have direction before next summer. Hackathorn suggested sending out a flier to see how many residents are interested in the oil program because it would be easier to put the numbers together. Parker said Secondary Roads does a newsletter. Meyers said if it would be three to five years before any possibility of the County taking it over, residents may realize they can have ten to fifteen years of calcium chloride for the cost of one year of oil.
Neuzil said as the committee looks at the policy, even up to a ten year period, he still thinks there are advantages with the staff not having to negotiate and deal with the time it takes to deal with associations. He asked the committee to study that as well. R. Sullivan said if there is anyone not on the committee, they can submit question to him for the committee to address. Stutsman said down the road there may be another tier when the County starts paving the roads instead. R. Sullivan said they need to stick to chip seal as a dust alleviation policy. Meyers said Stutsman has thought about paving. Parker said maybe once this offer changes into something else, they could have that conversation. R. Sullivan said that is why the policy includes the dedication of right-of-way. Neuzil said it is a great place to start.
Stutsman asked if Parker would allow chip seal for dust alleviation around the Saint Peter and Paul Church. Parker said Secondary Roads allows people to put as much calcium chloride as they wish. Hackathorn said that resident currently uses tree sap for a mile and a half. Parker said that is correct, but although there is a minimum Secondary Roads does not tell the residents they cannot put down more. Neuzil said it is under Parker’s discretion, but he would not stop them. Parker said this is just adding another option for the residents who can change if they wish. Hackathorn said the Safety Program is split at the driveway 250 feet each direction. He said if residents are not in the Safety Program, they can buy 1,000 feet of chloride and place it anywhere they wish. Hackathorn said when Secondary Roads puts the dust control down for safety reasons, those are the guideline because the concern is pulling in and out of their driveway. Residents are more concerned about the dust getting into the house.
Adjourned at 8:09 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary