MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
NOVEMBER 14, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chip Seal Policy................................................................................................................... 1
Planning Intern Taylor Newton: Johnson County Public Hunting Grounds........................... 6
Land Use Plan Committee’s Proposed Updated Johnson County Land Use Plan.................. 8
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 10:00 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
R. Sullivan said the Chip Seal Policy Committee is made up of Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore, Secondary Roads Maintenance Supervisor Kevin Hackathorn, County Engineer Greg Parker, Harney, and himself. R. Sullivan said they feel like they have come up with a good start on this policy and Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell has made comments which he believes the Board has seen. Neuzil asked them to review the policy and some of the changes that have been made. R. Sullivan said that Chappell had asked the Committee change the word "will" to "may", "new applications" to "applications", and then also asked for an explanation of the meaning of changing the classification of a road. R. Sullivan said the Committee made these changes.
R. Sullivan said the two big issues were that Chappell had talked about the Board adding roads to their inventory of chip sealed roads after three years. The Committee's opinion was that there may be a case at some time when they do want to do that but didn’t want to make it a requirement. He said they didn’t want it to be automatic and wanted the Board to always have the right to decide. R. Sullivan said that Chappell also talked about spelling out what maintenance entails in greater detail in the policy. He said Hackathorn talked about the fact that currently, when dust control is done an application is signed and it talks about permit rules and lays out expectations. This is not part of the policy but is part of the contract that is signed. R. Sullivan said the Committee thought it was a better way to handle this because if it is put in the policy, things such as cost or the date by which the applicant has to apply will change. So they wanted to be flexible enough because as things change over time they wanted to be able to change over time with it. He said that Parker and Hackathorn thought they would easily be able to make those couple changes to the contract.
Dvorak said if this is satisfactory to the Board to move this to an informal item on the agenda, the permit application will be ready to view at the same time since it is referencing it. That way the Board could see the document and the application form that outlines both. They were waiting to see how the Board wanted to move forward with this before they put time and effort into doing it. Hackathorn said that he did bring a sample they would probably use and offered to make copies. He said it would probably be modified. Neuzil said that one issue is the node to node issue and it sounds like the Committee dropped that off of there completely. Moore said for the dust alleviation policy, yes. Harney said that Chappell was concerned with the node to node where the County would pick that up after three years which was the original thought. Harney said that Chappell said that is a decision the Board has to make. Stutsman said that they will have the discretion to do that. Hackathorn said that his understanding is that is more for the private person who wants the 500 foot spot in front of their house.
Neuzil brought up the situation where there is a mile of road and several houses decide to put 500 foot sections of chip seal, or whatever the surface is other than gravel, in front of their home. It gets to a point where it is almost done and there might be several little sections and he wondered if the Country would be required to fill those in. Stutsman said the way she understands it is that the homeowners are responsible for filling in those sections. R. Sullivan said the County has the right to ask them to fill it in. Neuzil asked what the distance is between filling them in. In other words, a person who has gravel in front of their home puts in the 500 feet of road. Then there are six sections of that and eventually one by one people fill it in. Neuzil wondered who pays for that. Dvorak said that in paragraph three, sentence two, it says “the County also reserves the right to require an applicant of chip seal longer than 500 feet in the event that there are two or more residents submitting applications within half a mile of each other on a single stretch of road.” In that instance the two or more residents may be required to have the application long enough to fill in the gap between the two.
Neuzil said that he is talking about the realistic part of when someone does it for three years and then two other people add on, would that first person now be required to pay additional fees. R. Sullivan said that every application every year is a new application. The County could in year one, two, and three say they are approved for the 500 feet. Then in year four enough neighbors have come in and when the person goes to reapply it is a new application. The County may then say that the 500 feet now has to be 600 feet because they have to go 100 more feet on each side. Moore said it could be reversed so that there could be two that got close that someone fills in and they will pick up some of that slack. Harney said the problem with trying to make that a requirement of them filling in is that an owner could quibble about property lines. Neuzil said another thing to think about is if someone decides to drop out. He said he wants them to think about all of these scenarios. Dvorak said they don’t have an answer for everything. R. Sullivan said he is aware of at least a couple dozen people who want to do this.
Dvorak said that this is a resolution not a law. Neuzil said that is something to keep in mind, that the Board often does that on policies and not ordinances. He said that the Board had one last night where the Board budged, like it did the last few meetings and they will probably continue to do that with this also. He asked what was decided in regards to the applicants that are already out in some of the subdivisions. Moore asked if he meant Stewart Road where the homeowners associations are. Neuzil said sure. Hackathorn said that it is his understanding that this isn’t addressing those roads because those are a separate contract. This is more like if a homeowner wants to put down dust alleviation such as calcium chloride or tree sap. He said if someone backs out, what they do is if it is adjoining another property, they go to them and say someone has dropped out and the County is going to tear it up. The adjoining homeowner then usually agrees to maintain it. R. Sullivan said that if for example one of the subdivisions that has a current contract dropped out, and wanted to get back in, then they would have to go under this new policy. They would be grandfathered in as long as they kept up.
Harney said that his understanding is that the existing chip seal spots that are on roads that were torn up years ago, that have been maintained by property owners do not necessarily fall under this. Hackathorn used Amana Road as an example saying that it used to be chip seal and there are still some segments left that are still chip seal. They are under the same guidelines as this. He inspects these sections and tells the property owners what needs to be done. Hackathorn said that some of the existing ones all started out around 500 feet and now some have shrunken down to 300 feet. The County has to decide whether to make them go back to the 500 feet. Neuzil said that the advantage of the County eventually taking over, particularly if it gets filled in from node to node, is the idea that staff doesn’t have to deal with 10 different land owners. Neuzil said they thought three years is too short but maybe after 10 years of applying this surface, it would be more advantageous for the County to take over the road. Harney said the problem with that under the policy the Engineer currently has is right now this is dust control, not a chip seal road the County maintains. He said there wouldn’t be the embargos and they wouldn’t get priorities to still register their gravel road.
Moore said that is a good point because it has been the feeling since the beginning of this Committee that the applicants should pay the cost of having chip seal as dust alleviation, and the County should not pick up that cost. He said the proposed policy they have generated would assure that. Harney said the reason they are keeping that as a dust alleviation policy road is the fact that when the Engineer does the chip seal he upgrades the ditches and grating which gets into a lot more expense than just the dust control. R. Sullivan said the County would still be able to do that at some point if they wanted, but just wouldn’t be required to. Dvorak said that their vision is if this policy moves forward, that the Committee would come back with a Chip Seal Policy for the growth areas. Neuzil said that the argument is that residents who pay to apply chip seal in front of their homes, after ten years, the cost savings of the County not putting rock down would be advantageous for the County to just take over that section of the road. He said that the Secondary Roads Department should have some money because they are saving money by not putting rock down and not sending trucks down the roads anymore.
Hackathorn said there are other maintenance activities that an oil road takes and a gravel road doesn’t. He said they are not keeping up with some of the chip seal system. Neuzil said that they are adding money to it because they are doing less on the gravel side. R. Sullivan said that nothing in this policy would ever stop the County from doing anything they want to a road, like paving it or chipping it. This policy would just give the land owner the opportunity to have better dust control. Stutsman said that she is ready to move ahead with the policy. She said they would also have something so when they start receiving calls in the spring they can say this is an option. Harney asked if they addressed everything Chappell had concerns about. R. Sullivan said yes.
Neuzil said that even if someone, after two years puts their application in, and in year three they still apply, it doesn’t necessarily mean that anything has to be done. Neuzil asked if they still apply for the permit even if nothing needs to be done. Hackathorn said that every year Secondary Roads sends out a letter and he goes out and inspects every site. He said then the applicant gets a letter saying what they have to do and asking whether they want to still participate in the program. Neuzil asked if they require that something be done every year. Hackathorn said that some of them get by with a year or two. Neuzil asked if usually they put a new layer of oil down. Hackathorn said that usually with the new ones, for the first three years the whole thing has to be done until a base is built up and hopefully the bases underneath holds up so they don’t have to rip it up and start over.
Neuzil said maybe the County does have this policy for a while and then determines after five years that there is a section that is basically a chip seal road and why wouldn’t the County go in and upgrade it. Neuzil asked if Secondary Roads would treat these roads like gravel roads or if they would use salt on them during inclement weather. Dvorak and Hackathorn responded yes. Dvorak said that there is language in the proposal that says the County is not going to embargo these roads. He said that was important and that he was aware the County was getting calls. Dvorak said Planning and Zoning is adamant that they don’t want to embargo 500 feet. Harney said that the roads will not be embargoed the same as a chip seal road but they would be embargoed as a road may need even if it is a gravel road. R. Sullivan responded that the County reserves the right to embargo if the Board decides that the owner does not get to decide. Neuzil asked what people are paying for 300 to 500 feet of oil. Hackathorn said that it is $415 a foot for the oil and the chloride is around $340 for two applications on 500 feet of road.
Neuzil said that roughly it costs a couple thousand dollars. Neuzil asked if it was just one application per year. Dvorak and Hackathorn both said yes. Neuzil said if residents do live on a gravel dusty surface they can invest the $2,000 instead of the $600-$700 on calcium chloride. Stutsman said there are people who think this will be a good investment because they want to live in a dust free area. She also believes it is an appropriate way to go rather than the County continuing to not have satisfactory results with dust control. Aside from the County taking over all of these roads, which would be an incredible increase in cost on the rural side of the budget, Stutsman said she thinks that if somebody wants a higher level of dust control then they should pay for it. R. Sullivan said they don’t expect thousands of people to do this. There will be a few people who want to do this and want to pay for it, and the County shouldn't stop them. Stutsman agreed.
Stutsman asked if the Board is ready to put this on the informal agenda. R. Sullivan said he wants to make sure to advertise this because it is new and people need to know about it. Hackathorn said they can put this information in the annual letter they send to everyone currently in the program. Stutsman asked if Johnson County Farm Bureau Representatives Jerry Anderson and Jim Dane could put an article in The Spokesman to help get the word out. Neuzil said that if this was on the December 4, 2008 Informal meeting agenda, and if everything goes well, it will pass on December 11, 2008 at the Formal meeting.
Anderson asked what liability issues the County would face if those chip seal roads, treated as gravel roads in the wintertime, become frozen or ice covered and an accident occurs. He also asked if the individual land owner or the County would be liable. Hackathorn said in the current snow policy, they don't go for bare pavement. R. Sullivan said that Chappell recommends that the Board revisit the snow policy because it has really old language.
Neuzil said that right now Amana Road, with three or four driveways, is treated like a gravel surface. Unless there is four inches of snow or a complaint from the Sheriff’s Office not much is done. Stutsman said that the landowner wouldn’t be liable. Anderson said he was thinking about the freezing rain type of an application, the driving tendencies may be faster on a gravel road because there would be more traction than on a chip sealed road. R. Sullivan said that the ultimate responsibility for the road stays with the County. He said that if a person gets a permit and either they or a company does work then Hackathorn would inspect it. If he thinks it is inadequate then he would have to do something or make them do something to fix it. Harney said it doesn’t change much from the existing ones that are out there.
Neuzil said it does bring up that same issue of if it becomes node to node and landowners are paying for those nodes. There is a mile or half mile of potential chip seal and chip seal surfaces are slicker in certain circumstances. That is something that will have to be dealt with down the road. Hackathorn said that is completely different. Neuzil said that landowners off of 180th Street near Solon had at one time said they wanted to chip seal the road and the County said no. He asked if this would now allow them to do that. Dvorak said that in theory yes if they want to pay.
Moore said that the only thing that it is contingent on is if they do a new Chip Seal Policy and if that road were to be an area that was categorized as a road that would need improvements. Then they may demand more to do the chip seal for them, such as right-of-way. Neuzil said they might look at the turnaround where their bus is and ask if they can chip seal that. R. Sullivan said they think there are a couple churches that might do this. Hackathorn said currently they do use dust control but in a case like that they would want to go in first and clean some silt out. They would also make sure there is proper drainage before they invest the money, which would not be a charge to them.
Dvorak said that three or four years ago he was contacted by Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Biologist Tim Thompson who shared with him that some of the laws regarding hunting changed. He said that this change was brought up at a Land Use Committee planning meeting. The Committee requested to look at putting an amendment into the Land Use Plan regarding public hunting grounds. Dvorak said he had Planning Intern Taylor Newton begin research into that and today he will share his findings and possibly a recommendation to the Board for amending the Land Use Plan.
Newton said that the purpose of this was to define public hunting areas and hopefully develop appropriate policies from that. The major statuary change was passed in 2004 and it basically says that a person can not shoot a firearm within 200 yards of a home or a feed lot unless they have permission from the owner of that building. He believed that changed as of 2004 and now consent is no longer needed to discharge a firearm within a public hunting ground within 200 yards of a feed lot or a building. There is concern with safety issues as far as development within a public hunting area. Newton said that he would like to provide maps of public hunting areas to people within the County so they know of those areas and look at special rules per area of each public hunting ground.
Newton said all public hunting areas are subject to State of Iowa hunting and trapping regulations. A few examples of those hunting regulations are no hunting with laser sites and no shooting across roadways, railroads, or water. Newton said he thinks the information about each public hunting area could go on a website or in a pamphlet. This is basic information such as acreage, habitat, and species. He said that the Coralville Reservoir has a few special rules as far as driving animals and vehicles being prohibited from roadways. Newton gave information on Hawkeye Wildlife Management Area which was about special rules, habit, and primary species. He also gave information about Kent Park, which happens to have many special rules. There are special hunting times within the park; there is a special shotgun deer hunt, and archery season. Newton said there are also special information sessions on how to apply. He thinks it would be beneficial to get this type of information to the public.
Newton also showed maps of Fry Town and Cedar River Crossing which are areas that have few if any special rules on hunting. His recommendation is to place information on a website or brochure to make it available to citizens in the County. He also said to have the Planning and Zoning intern update that information yearly, preferably in late spring or early summer so it is updated before deer season. Newton also recommended amending the Land Use Plan to include some buffering around public hunting areas. He said his main point is to be in accord with this new statue because a firearm can be fired within five yards of a home that is built on the border of or within a public hunting area. Stutsman asked if there were homes that close. Dvorak said yes, and added that he used to live about 40 feet from the Corps of Engineers line. It was public hunting ground and people were pheasant hunting in Dvorak's back yard.
R. Sullivan clarified that a person would have the right to fire a gun that close to Dvorak's house. Newton said they wouldn’t at that home because it was built before 2004 and this refers to any new development. Dvorak said that he doesn’t know how people are supposed to know the difference. R. Sullivan said that it seems the Board should incorporate that into Zoning as a setback. He said rather than having the hunters worry about it maybe the Board should worry about where they are putting the houses. Stutsman said she wondered if there were any regulations on how close they can be to the Corps line. Harney said that law doesn’t really make any sense because it is just saying that the hunter can shoot a gun there as long as they are not shooting at an animal. Dvorak said that he hunted all his life and he didn’t know about this until last summer and it has been in the books for five years.
Dvorak said that they need to start working with Chappell to amend the Land Use Plan and possibly the County ordinance. R. Sullivan said if someone is farming adjacent to land like this, even if the cattle are up against the fence, they could fire there. Newton said yes because this is only for structures. If a home on a farm or a feed lot was built before 2004, they cannot fire within 200 yards. If it was built after 2004 they could fire within 200 yards. R. Sullivan said that he is talking about a pasture. Newton said they could because there is no law against that.
Stutsman said they should start to look at the Setback Ordinance. Dvorak agreed and said to start working with Chappell on getting direction on how they could change the ordinances and the Land Use Plan. Harney said that instead of changing all of these laws wouldn’t it be easier to get the legislature to change their law through Conservation. Stutsman said that maybe during the Board's Legislative Session and see what the legislators say about this. Dvorak said they would give the Board copies of the brochures that they use for reference.
Stutsman said that in some areas this wouldn’t be a problem, but the areas that have been targeted for development are areas where people hunt. R. Sullivan said he thinks it is a good step to get this out there for people to start thinking about because the more contact they are having with adjacent landowners the better. Dvorak said they will put this out on the web soon as a source of information because they get a lot of calls about where the public hunting grounds are. Stutsman said she recalls that legislators respond much more to constituents then to administrators like Board members. She said she wouldn’t be surprised if this came from a hunter who said they don’t want to ask permission every time they hunt. Newton said probably, because public hunting grounds were being encroached upon.
Neuzil said that some hunters lived where they lived and hunted where they hunted and new people built a house and they didn’t want to deal with it. He also said the people that bought the house are people who are very environmentally conscious of things and don’t believe in hunting. He believes that’s where this came from. R. Sullivan said that in terms of moving forward they just need the Board to agree to put this on the website. Neuzil said maybe when the information is on the website Newton could come to a televised meeting and present the information to the public.
Moore said the map the Board has in front of them and the projection on the video screen represents the current Land Use Plan. Moore said they concentrated on the zoned area as Phase One and a little deviation from it to include some areas for infill because the Board mentioned they thought infill was a good idea. Normally, following Newport Road up it would all still have been Phase One. Moore pointed to a purple line on the map and said this shows that now Phase One is in the zoned areas. He said the remainder of what was left was left as Phase Two, the future build-out area. The part that was originally in Phase One is now a rural agricultural area and that’s how it would be treated. Moore said they started to include the intersection of Newport Road and Sugar Bottom Road but decided for now to leave that out.
Moore said Turkey Creek had some spot zonings in there so he figured it would be worth while to include that in Phase One and just infill and bring it up to there. Moore also said following Sugar Bottom on around, there were some smaller developments occurring although the 1960 mass zonings weren’t in there. They felt because of the development at the end of Bank Ridge, what was west of Scott Boulevard, this zoned ground should be developed first. Moore said because 180th Street had been repaved they felt it would be appropriate for infill development. If they were getting anything in this area they would be asked to talk to Solon and annex. He said there is a lot of Corps of Engineers ground and they tried to follow the zonings and stay in the area. Pointing to a section on the projection screen, Moore said they went to a Phase Two from Sandy Beach coming up to 140th Street and there is some access. Moore said that everything on the west side of what would be Phase One part of the Corridor, and this is included because of agreements with the Cities. There are already policies adopted, fringe area agreements, that will allow development to occur in these areas. He said that Highway 965, not I-380, will be used as the boundary.
R. Sullivan said he is looking at the white space on the map and he wondered why more of it wasn’t considered Phase Two. Moore answered there are developments around it so to them it seems like it is valid infill. Neuzil said there has been a lot of development on Highway 965 on the other side of the road, and he didn’t know if the area they are talking about is a certain distance from Highway 965 would count as part of Phase One. Moore asked if he meant like they do on the paved roads like a quarter mile. Neuzil said the development on the other side, following Highway 965 within a half or quarter mile from Highway 965. Meyers said it looks like that is what they are proposing for Newport Road and Sugar Bottom Road. Stutsman asked if this is just for the North Corridor. Dvorak said they can add a mile or half mile on the west side.
R. Sullivan said that the one thing Moore had mentioned is that it is all covered under the Swisher Fringe Area Agreement. Dvorak said if it is left as it is now, then it stays agriculture land, but if the Board instructs the staff to move it a quarter mile to the west they can do that. Stutsman said she isn’t interested in doing that because there isn't any residentially zoned land on the west side. Neuzil responded that there is residential and very little agricultural zoned land. He said that it would be infilling and he wasn’t sure how they determine whether it is a half mile or a quarter mile from a hard surface road.
Moore said they did a quarter of a mile because the length of cul-de-sac maximum was 1,000 feet. Neuzil asked if they could be shown the other side on the map. Dvorak said they would like to keep it a quarter mile because there is a maximum of 1,000 feet. Neuzil said that he does not mind saying that if they are within a quarter mile of a hard surface road in the identified phased area. Dvorak said they would at least like to have some visual for people who look at it on the internet. Meyers asked if the 1,000 feet was to the actual building. Dvorak said the 1,000 feet is what they use for the maximum roads. If a lot or half a lot goes outside of that, they wouldn’t be too concerned but they encourage them to stay within the 1,000 feet. This just gives them latitude to put lots out further.
Meyers said he was wondering if 1,000 feet gets measured to the actual structure. Dvorak said to the end of the road, so the cul-de-sac has to be within 1,000 feet. Meyers said the structure could be quite a ways back. Dvorak answered that the structure could be back and the zoning would actually go back further. Dvorak said if three Supervisors agree to that, they can amend the map. Stutsman said she would like to see it before making any changes. Referring to the map, Assistant Planner Josh Busard said he made all the residential areas yellow. Neuzil referred to the map and asked if the purple line followed Highway 965. Moore answered yes.
Neuzil said that there isn’t going to be much asking because it is already built out. Dvorak said that everything above 140th Street is within the County’s fringe area agreement with Cedar Rapids and Swisher and that is why they don’t mess with it. R. Sullivan said he was wondering about the triangle between Highway 965 and Cou Falls Road. Neuzil said that is where there are houses. Stutsman said that they did a development there not long ago. Moore said they want to stay within the Fringe Area Agreement with Swisher but they could run 140th Street like this and then include this area, they would take the line and go over on Marak Road to 140th Street over to Cou Falls and then down. R. Sullivan said that was what he was thinking but there could be negatives to that. Moore said Cou Falls Road is a chip seal road and 140th Street is gravel. He said that Marak Road from 140th to 965 is going to be chip seal for the winery. Meyers asked what the red area on the map was. Moore said that it is commercial zoning and the winery had the same zoning but they down-zoned it. Stutsman asked if the County would be required to upgrade Cou Falls Road if it is included. Dvoark said that if the traffic count increases, that would allow some growth on the road. Neuzil said that a lot of that is already built-out.
Moore said there might be some opportunities for infill. If someone came to them right now they would probably not rezone for them. Neuzil asked if that was an area the Board wanted to see infilled in Phase One before they take agriculture land. Dvorak said that there is some flood plain on the west side and they are discouraging development there. Referring to the map, Stutsman asked if they could just bring it down south. Dvorak said that most of that is built out and there is not much opportunity for infill there. Neuzil said that if they just go a quarter of a mile from Highway 965 that would solve the problem. Dvorak said that would leave all access points directly off Highway 965 instead of Cou Falls Road. Moore said the number of access points might be an issue. This is a large subdivision that has one access point and all of that traffic comes out on the road and goes to Highway 965. Moore said they tend to do smaller subdivisions in the County. They have to worry about the number of driveway access. They are getting ready to improve Highway 965 so that will help a little bit. He said that it wouldn’t be a problem to change the map and go a quarter mile on the other side.
Harney said that they aren’t gaining anything because most of that is Corps ground and there are wetlands. Pointing to an area on the map, Moore said this is Corps ground and then the Swan Lake area, so it might be that they could come a quarter mile off of that, which then goes into North Liberty. He said there is a Fringe Area Agreement that is on hold because of the annexation battles but this area is part of the agreement. R. Sullivan said that he is not interested in the Swan Lake area because it is heavily farmed and it is real agriculture. He said he is thinking about Cou Falls where there isn’t any farm ground but there is some timber. He continued that the question is if someone came in saying they wanted to put in a three lot subdivision, would the Board object.
Pointing to areas on the map, Moore suggested changes to boundary lines. Neuzil said he could live with that but thinks as long as Highway 965 is a part of that, because it's almost done anyway. Stutsman said she would rather keep it at a quarter of a mile too. Meyers agreed and said at least until he could go look around. Referring to the map, Dvorak zoomed in on the Cou Falls Road area, and asked Moore to show the Board how far a quarter of a mile would reach. Dvorak said he has had some interest in a particular lot, which he pointed to on the map. He said the problem is that they have to cross the railroad and they are not happy about letting people cross from Cou Falls Road to the railroad.
Moore said they did a subdivision and it took a lot of time to get approval from the railroad. Dvorak said that off of 140th Street they put a right-of-way along it but not to cross at the back of the lots. Dvorak asked if there was Board consensus to move it over a quarter of the mile. Harney said he is not in favor of it because not much is gained because the entrance at Cou Falls Road floods and they would have to go back around. He said he thinks they are making a mistake by getting away from the current phasing because it has been working between it and the road counts. Harney continued that the current phasing allows growth and if they go into what they are requesting now, they are going into already zoned land. He said they went through this when they put the phasing together and the zoned land has very few buildable lots on it. He said where the growth is set up in the present phasing, they talked about how they are going to allow them to build a quarter mile off in such places like Buchmayer Bend, Dingleberry Road, and Prairie du Chien Road where there are growth areas where they want growth to occur. Harney said that moving it to Cou Falls they are adding it to a high traffic area and are going against what needs to be done to encourage building, to build a tax base and keep the economy flowing.
Moore said that there is one area staff would like to offer as a growth area that is not on the map which is Buchmayer Bend. He said there has been development in the area in the past and there have been people looking at it. They have been unable to settle on road policies for improving that road. Moore continued that it is outside the Iowa City growth area because it was in the North Corridor so the Iowa City Fringe Area Agreement didn’t include it. Harney said if it's moved off of Highway 965 there are high traffic areas, school issues, and transportation issues. Neuzil said that Harney argued to add more and now he’s arguing not to add more. Harney responded that he doesn’t think they should add more on Highway 965. Neuzil said that he doesn’t have a problem adding a quarter mile off of Highway 965. Stutsman asked what they were talking about with Buckmayer Bend. Moore said they were thinking that all the land between Highway #1 and Buchmayer Bend plus a quarter mile on the west side of it. Referring to the map, Neuzil asked if the land was for sale. Meyer said that as someone who drives on Highway #1 all the time, he is not enthused about a lot more traffic on the highway. Harney said he lives on Highway #1 and it just depends on the time of day that it takes to drive it. It's the same on North Dubuque Street and Highway 965, this is part of growth and transportation issues everywhere. Meyers said anytime he is on the highway it is clogged with traffic. Moore said the DOT is getting ready for intersection improvements at Rapid Creek Road, Morse Road, and Newport Road which will help some.
Meyers said at some point when Oakdale Boulevard to Dubuque Street is finished off, in theory it continues to Highway #1 and wraps around to the south. Moore says it comes in south of Rapid Creek Road. R. Sullivan said that it is a multi-million dollar bridge across the river which isn’t there yet and this is not a high priority for anybody. Harney asked what is wrong with the phasing the way it is now. R. Sullivan and Neuzil said it is too big. Harney said that Planning and Zoning says it’s working and includes the area where there has been growth where the County wanted growth and anything else is regulated by road counts. R. Sullivan said he thinks the problem is all of Big Grove Township where there is tons of farm land. He said there were a couple of farmstead splits there and everything was zoned residential right around there and he thinks that’s nuts.
Harney said they had that discussion when they put this in place and the decision at that time was up to Newport Road all the way down to Iowa City was the growth area. R. Sullivan said that he is talking about north of Solon to the Linn County line. Harney said that was Phase Two and the County wasn't doing anything there other than on hard surface roads. Neuzil said that by shrinking the plan they infill the areas where they want residential growth to occur. Harney emphasized that it is where Neuzil wants growth to occur. Neuzil said then they will start to concentrate on upgrading roads within this area. Harney said that doing so restricts people who want to be away from the high traffic areas and want to live in a country setting. Meyers said that if everybody does that those are no longer low traffic areas. R. Sullivan said that's why they zone it in the first place.
Stutsman referenced the map and asked why certain areas were determined to be Phase Two. Moore said they used the original boundaries from Phase One and looked at the development that was already occurring there. Right now there isn’t heavy development in those areas shown on the map as Phase Two. Moore said based on what they heard from the Board, they tried to stay close to the zoned areas, so they moved the boundary lines away from Newport Road and Sugar Bottom Road towards the already zoned areas. They felt that should eventually go, so they called it Phase Two rather than an agriculture area. R. Sullivan said that assuming there is a lot of growth over the next ten years, like the previous ten years, they will have to look at this map because it is going to build out and as it fills up they will have to find other places for development. There is an understanding this isn’t a static thing that would stay this way for 50 years. Harney said that he doesn’t think that this plan has been in place for even five years yet, and from what was said at the October 10, 2008 meeting, they weren’t going to approve any additional lots other than what is already zoned residential. He continued that the way the phasing is set now, it was in Phase One and would be looked at positively if it was in that growth area. Harney said he encourages growth in the County to help support the tax base.
Neuzil said that he would be open minded to rezoning pieces of property within the identified growth area if they were in agriculture areas but contiguous to the zoned residential areas. Harney said that he is changing those areas and changing property values and opportunities people have. Stutsman said that there isn’t a lot of that area because the whole area around Naples Avenue will all be annexed into North Liberty or Coralville. Harney said that is the thing with the Cities’ growth areas because they make the decisions on that. The Board won’t be approving any homes or growth in the Cities’ growth areas. So if those are eliminated, no one can build there. Meyers said looking at the area Stutsman was talking about, Naples Avenue and the whole Scanlon Farm, it will be in filled some day and will be inside city limits at North Liberty and Coralville’s expense. The County will still get tax dollars off of it.
Neuzil said they also need to keep in mind that this is not the only growth area and they want growth and development to occur in those unincorporated villages. He said they went through a list with five or six different areas but this is just the North Corridor. Stutsman said that the area is around Naples Avenue and North Liberty, so if Scanlon’s came to the Board to develop it, the Board would say yes. Dvorak said the County was asked about that in the past, and the City is going to provide sewer and water, they discourage doing it in a rural area. Meyers asked with that thing in court right now could the Board even make a decision on it. Dvorak said that no one has approached them to do it. Moore said that it is still in the County.
Stutsman said that she thinks there are certain residents for sensible development that want to stop it and looking at it, one wonders why stop it. Moore said that Scanlon representatives came to Dvorak and Moore years ago and looking at the Fringe Area Agreement, it was in the majority of Coralville. Harney said even in this Phase One, the Board allowed growth on 180th Street towards North Liberty. He thinks they are trying to adjust something they don't need to mess with.
R. Sullivan said the current plan gives people the wrong impression when they see the 20,000 acre areas, it shows people the area where they can develop. Harney said that was part of the Phase Two and he wasn't in agreement with that either. It went on way north of Solon in areas where they didn’t want to work. R. Sullivan said that he wants people to build here first before they take away farmland. Harney said that isn’t necessarily agricultural land off of Newport Road and Prairie du Chien Road and he wouldn’t want to see what would happen if they wanted to put a confinement in there. R. Sullivan responded that would happen anyplace they'd want to put one. It happened on Oak Crest Hill Road which is clearly farm. The Board will deal with that when they have to. Harney said he does not see any reason to change it.
Moore said that when they adopted the 1998 Land Use Plan the Board wasn’t willing to completely give up the historically defined North Corridor. Then in 2002 they were able to get the phasing concept in but basically it sounds like the Board is saying they want to refine the phasing. R. Sullivan said in 1960 a Board did something thinking they were doing the right thing and they tied the hands of future Boards. That is what he likes about something that is more narrow here, it's a living document, and as people build and it gets pretty full, the County will have to find more places for people to build. He said he doesn’t believe it is good planning to put something in place for the next 50 years.
Moore said that Harney said that Planning and Zoning staff has said the current phasing works, and it does. However, if the majority of the Board wants to change this, staff is ready to do what the Board wants. Stutsman asked why the area in Section 11, just southeast of Shueyville, is omitted. Moore said there is a Fringe Area Agreement and most of the land in that area is to be treated as agricultural land. Stutsman said that this is just a policy and not an ordinance, so the Board can deviate. Dvorak said that if someone wants to build outside the boundary by ten feet or ten lots, as long as it is contiguous with the existing or the proposed growth there, it might be given different consideration. Pointing to an area on the map, Neuzil said if the road in Section 11, where those two yellow boxes are, got upgraded it would be more attractive and Shueyville might annex it and TIF it.
Moore said if they adopt this and someone wants to build in that area, then they would come back in and run an amendment to the map showing that area now in Phase One. Neuzil asked if there was a resolution in regards to Highway 965. Stutsman said there were at least three people who were supportive. Neuzil said that the problem with Buchmayer Bend is that it's hard to get the boundary over there. Obviously it is going to be a lot of growth but it will be hampered until the road is upgraded.
Dvorak said there has been inquiry into Dr. McFarland’s Farm because they are moving. He thought if they wanted to bring in Buchmayer Bend, they could do a half-mile or a quarter mile on both sides of Highway 965. Moore said if they get a proposal then they would have them ask the Board to amend the Land Use Plan to show that as a growth area. That way before they spend the money to rezone it, they will find out if the Board is willing to change the Land Use map. Neuzil said that if there is a majority of the Board that wants to add Buchmayer Bend wouldn’t it be easier to do it now. Stutsman said she wants to add it. R. Sullivan said he does not. Neuzil said he is interested in adding it. Meyers said just because they have a sign up doesn't mean the Board has to do anything. R. Sullivan said with Buchmayer Bend, there is an established road and they could limit the access on Highway #1. What he wouldn’t want is to go a quarter mile north or south, it wouldn’t be a good place to put a drive. He thinks they would have to limit it to Buchmayer Bend as the access and not Highway #1.
Neuzil said he assumes the developer would pay for an upgrade of that road. Moore said that is why they want the Chip Seal Policy in place because they want this road to eventually be paved. Meyers said that the same issues came up with Buchmayer Bend about three years ago. Moore said that previously the Board wouldn’t consider doing chip seal. The offer was to go all the way around to Highway #1 and the Board said they couldn’t afford it. People who have talked to them about Wonick Lane could share the cost.
Stutsman said she doesn’t understand why Newport Road is in Phase Two. Moore said they were trying to stay close to the zoned ground, and if the Board agrees, the boundary line can be moved. Now it is zoned agricultural and there are some smaller lots in there. Harney said he thinks the boundary should follow Highway #1 to Newport Road. R. Sullivan said that there is all that farmland that they didn't want to do. Harney said there is not a lot of big farm land in that area. R. Sullivan said he is fine with what Stutsman is suggesting but he doesn’t want to go all the way to Highway #1. That was the mistake the Board made the first time. Harney said it wasn't a mistake, they planned that because that’s where the growth was. There is Dingleberry Road and Buchmayer Bend, that's where things are growing.
R. Sullivan said there is no point in having another house in that area when people are currently trying to farm there. There are other places for them to build. Harney said there are some farmers that want to build homes there. Stutsman said they could ask to have that ground rezoned and, like Moore said, it’s a fluid document. Harney pointed out that at the last meeting, the majority of the Board said they would not let that happen. During these hard economic times, he doesn’t want to shut off options for people to build, particularly on hard surface roads. R. Sullivan said he still thinks this is a much better process because they have a lot of options here. Harney said there are not really options, and proof of that is when Planning and Zoning said a majority of area zoned residential is not buildable.
R. Sullivan said when they did the Road Performance Standards, they had built out numbers and there are several lots. Stutsman asked how many Board members want to include the growth area over to Highway #1. Harney said he does. Meyers and R. Sullivan said no. Stutsman said she does not. Neuzil asked about Phase Two on Newport Road. Stutsman said she would like to include that. Neuzil and Meyers said they are okay with it being Phase Two. R. Sullivan said he would leave it in Phase Two and if things in Phase One begin to build out too much, they can always add it later. Stutsman said she had always thought that was the growth area in the County, along Newport Road and she thinks the community is going to wonder about that. Meyers said this whole map is growth area. Stutsman said she is aware of that, but it will be obvious why that was taken out of there, where it was always considered a growth area.
R. Sullivan said the zoning is the key, and that yellow area is not zoned. Stutsman asked if there had been any inquires in that area. Moore said they received an application to develop three lots in there, (Moore pointed to an area on the map). Stutsman said that is a long ways away from the boundary line. Moore said right now he is in Phase One. Neuzil said he thinks everyone is getting their applications in before the end of the year.
Moore summarized by saying they are adding a quarter mile on Highway 965, not adding Buchmayer Bend, and not changing the area that Stutsman asked. R. Sullivan said he was not sure if three Board members wanted to include Buchmayer Bend. Stutsman said she would and Meyers said he would not. Stutsman said that Meyers wants to stop all development in that area. Meyers said Stutsman used the word leapfrog with that and she was right. It's this little spot out there that is not connected to the rest of it. Harney said it is already growing though. Stutsman said that with what’s on the other side, there is interest. Neuzil said he was okay with adding in that area. Harney said he wants to include it and more also. Dvorak said they will redraw those two areas and send it back to the Board. Neuzil said this is just the North Corridor and there are still four or five other small unincorporated villages. Moore responded yes and this will be on the Planning and Zoning agenda in January, 2009.
Busard asked if the quarter mile would be from the line or the section lines from Highway 965 on the west side. Moore said to do a quarter mile off of the right-of-way. R. Sullivan wanted it to be north where there is already development and he is not interested in that Swan Lake place. Moore said it would be easier to go to Cou Falls Road. Dvorak responded there were concerns with flooding. Dvorak said they could make it half a mile. Moore said they might have to do that anyway because of parcels in the way. Moore said these changes are major changes to the map they currently have so they will make the changes and get Board approval. Then it will have to go back through Planning and Zoning and bring it back to the Board to adopt it as the new Land Use Plan. Changing the boundaries of the Village doesn’t require that in the Land Use Plan.
Adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2009
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on February 11, 2009 at 11:00 a.m.