Stutsman: Informal meeting back into session. I forgot to do one thing. I wanted to tell the Supervisors we got some thank you notes from SIBSHIP. Last week the Board agreed to, during their budget process, to fund this program for a minimal amount of money. It had been funded previously from the MH/MR/DD fund, and because it’s not a direct service could no longer be funded through that fund, so the Board agreed to fund the program. $1,300, I think, is what they do. SIBSHIP is a program through the Rec. Center for… Well, they meet at the Rec. Center, I don’t think it’s sponsored by the Rec. Center. They meet there, and it’s for siblings of children with disabilities. There’s correspondence to the Board in here. I think they’re thank you notes, I haven’t opened them. I will pass these around, if people want to read those and look at those.

Jordahl: I think we ought to start down at the end of the table over here.

Lehman: Wait here while they get on with their presentation.

Stutsman: OK. Let’s see. Next item on the agenda is a presentation from the I-SOARR Group about the Johnson County Scenic Road Ordinance. With that, I’ll turn it over to Tom Carsner and Pat Cancilla, if you want to explain what Scenic Road Ordinance is all about.

I-SOARR Representative Tom Carsner: OK. Well, thank you very much for this opportunity. What we want to present this morning is a concept plan of a Scenic Roads Ordinance as we’ve been able to research it across the country and in various states. I’ve got an outline here on the overhead just to follow along a little bit with our presentation, and I can give you some fuller material afterward. But a Scenic Roads Ordinance is not a new idea by any means. There have been several national programs, there’s a national scenic byways program that’s been in existence for several years. There are several state programs. Here’s the New York Scenic Byways Program, and the Federal Government, the Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation has put out a pamphlet about scenic roads, scenic byways. It’s something that’s been in existence for over 30 years. What we are proposing is something that would compliment these federal and state programs, where they have designated some roads, and then created some management plans to maintain those roads. The Scenic Roads Program got a big boost with the ISTEA Act of 1991, and the Transportation Equity Act, T-21, that followed after that. In those last 10 years or so since then, more people have become introduced to the scenic roads idea, and it’s something that has caught on across the country. For our presentation today and for many of the ideas that we’ve presented, we’ve taken a lot of the basic ideas from the Wisconsin Rustic Roads Program. There’s a set of administrative rules here and there’s a pamphlet that is called Wisconsin’s Rustic Roads, and I always love this subtitle here, it’s called A Positive Step Backward. So much of what we will talk about derives from the Wisconsin Rustic Roads Program. A Scenic Roads Ordinance would be a distinct change in the current County Road Building Policy and the County Land Use Planning. Really, it would harmonize those 2, which sometimes aren’t always on the same page. We have a very good Land Use Plan that we adopted in 1998, but then we also have the 5 Year Road Plan. Our experience has been that those 2 don’t always come together in the best way possible. A Scenic Roads Ordinance would help both with the 5 Year Road Plan and with the Land Use Plan to create some places where those 2 would work in more harmony and help preserve some of those things that, in rural areas, that we are trying to save. A Scenic Roads Ordinance would allow additional considerations when you’re coming up with transportation policy decisions. Some of those new considerations, as developed through these scenic roads programs in other states and across the country, talk about expanding the criteria that you use when you make plans for whether you’re going to upgrade a road or whether you’re going to leave a road alone. You have the traditional criteria that you’re all very familiar with, traffic volume, speed, safety concerns, roadbed conditions and available funding. What a Scenic Roads Ordinance would take into consideration are some additional points. These are 6 new points that a Scenic Roads Ordinance is particularly concerned about. Scenic areas, natural foundations that are important, historic considerations, cultural, archaeological and recreational. These are additional criteria that may lead to the conclusion that some roads don’t need to be improved. I put that word and design in quotes because often people don’t always agree on what improvement means. It creates a new design standard in the sense that you’re creating a new class of road that has additional protections along with it to help maintain it, help preserve it in its current status, in its current situation. That’s kind of what I wanted to get at in the beginning, that it’s not a new idea, but it is a definite change. The basic idea is that you’re expanding the criteria that you use to examine the future of a road. I wanted to go down a few points at defining just what is a scenic road. A scenic road has those 6 characteristics, or some, or most of those 6 characteristics. Scenic, natural features, historic, cultural, archeological, or recreational elements. A scenic road usually has some outstanding natural features along its borders, rugged terrain, native vegetation, open areas, native wildlife, agricultural vistas, something that sets this road apart from other roads. It should be a public road, meaning a County road, which is usable year round. A scenic road usually serves a function of some kind of recreational enjoyment. You have autos, bicycles, hiking trails, which attract people to those natural features that are important, as well as being used for general transportation, people getting to and from places. A scenic road is usually a loop or is… The point here is that it’s usually easy to get to. It creates some kind of loop on itself, or is near or borders on a connection with a main highway. It’s not something that is isolated and very difficult to get to, because if it was that difficult to get to, there really wouldn’t be much traffic on it anyway and you probably wouldn’t have concerns about whether to upgrade it. A scenic road has zoning or would acquire zoning that is compatible to the lower level of use that a scenic road would have. It’s a low density type of zoning. A scenic road can be any type of a road, any standard of a road, it can be a dirt road, gravel, chip sealed or paved. It could be a one way or a 2 way, it could have bicycle or hiking paths connected to it. The last point of a scenic road, usually it has a maximum 45 mile per hour speed limit, but often times it goes down to as low as 25 miles per hour. These are the basic characteristics of scenic road programs as they have been developed across the country. The last part that I wanted to talk about was the process for designating a scenic road. This is, again, a kind of a mixture of a few different processes in different states across the country. The first point is that it’s usually created by citizen interest, something, perhaps, is threatened, a residential project is going up, or a road improvement is proposed, and people are concerned about that. They create a group that raises this concern, they begin to ask why should we preserve this? They create a positive alternative to improving the road. Second point is in order to provide a basis for designating a scenic road, you need to have an inventory of the road features, and you begin by looking at those 6 qualities that we talked about before, scenic, natural, historic, cultural, archeological and recreational. Some systematic process is used to mark and note the qualities that are on that road, and most programs talked about going every 1/10 of a mile and noting on a log the different elements that are on that road. Also, you’re trying to note things that may be a threat to the future of that road. Third point is an analysis of the road features, you take all that information that you had from the inventory and you funnel it down to the most important elements that are on that road. You create a narrative of why this road is important, you begin to create a vision statement of why this road should be protected, what is important about this road. The 4th point is when you’ve come to some organized presentation about the elements on the road, there’s usually some kind of a commission or a committee on the State level… In this sense we’re talking about a County level, by which these proposals are sifted, weighed, and determined as to whether they’re worthy of status as a scenic road. There’s usually some kind of citizens panel that looks at the different priorities, looks at the different projects, and makes some recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors. Another important point is you’re beginning to lay the legal foundation. All of Zoning and road construction usually talks about some kind of reasonable legal foundation for why you’re doing something. At this point in the process, you are cataloguing those 6 elements and other points that are important about this road so that if it’s every challenged in the future, you can go back and say, we had a very logical, reasonable explanation for why this road should be designated. This is where it happens. The next point is that at some point, the County Supervisors actually make a decision as to whether this road should gain scenic road designation. Some of the consequences of that, of course, is that County road funding and road policy would be affected. Secondary Roads would certainly be involved in working on new priorities. The last step is, perhaps in many ways the most important step, a Road Corridor Management Plan is what you put in place to ensure that this scenic road is protected. It puts into policy and government action a variety of strategies and planning tools that can be used to protect the scenic road in its current condition. That doesn’t mean that you don’t do anything to the scenic road. Since the 3 R’s of scenic road maintenance are resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation. But a Corridor Management Plan does help protect the future of that road. It is creating a new level of road, a scenic road which had a different designation than any other road in the County. It is a new way of thinking and a new way of planning, but it’s definitely not something that hasn’t been tried and has been working successfully for many decades and many places across the country. That’s my part of the presentation, and I’ll hand it over to Pat Cancilla.

I-SOARR Representative Pat Cancilla: Part of what Tom talked about was doing an inventory of the roads, and I went along Sugar Bottom Road and Newport Road as an example of potential scenic roads in the County. I actually photographed, not every 10th of a mile, but I will share with you at the end of this time the photographs that I took. As you said, the qualities that go into making a scenic road are 6. One is looking at the scenic provisions of it. There should be open spaces, farms, rolling hills, lakes, creeks and ponds, wetlands and prairie. These are all illustrated along those 2 roads. From the natural point of view, there should be such things as wildlife habitat, prairie, in the case that we’re talking about, there are MacBride and Coralville Lakes, and there are plenty of woodlands that are present there. Here’s a couple of the example of the photographs that I took along the way. This is near Sugar Bottom, with a rural road appearance and a lot of woodlands. Here are rolling hills, farmlands, and woodlands in the distance. This is also a century farm that is along the way. In addition, there are things like this which is at Sugar Bottom Road near Turkey Creek, and this is a Johnson County Historical Society Prairie Restoration, which is right on the road. There are creeks and wetlands such as Turkey Creek here, or at Sugar Bottom overall. Now, you can also look at the historic qualities along the road, such things as St. Mary’s Church is a historic church that’s there, and there are 2 cemeteries along the way. Barns are abundant in the area, but just recently in the Des Moines Register, they said in an article that Iowa is losing its rural heritage one barn at a time. If you drive the country roads, you’ll see barns coming down all over. I know on my farm, we’re near a century barn, and many of the barns that I photographed along there are nearing 100 years old. There are also century homes. By that I mean homes that are 100 years old, and there are century farms, too, that I’m familiar with. Also, along Sugar Bottom Road, there’s a log cabin that looks like it’s been there for at least 100 years and it was a new discovery for me when I went along the road. From the cultural point of view, we’ve got churches and cemeteries that are along the way. This is just a view of the countryside with St. Mary’s Church and cemetery. There is the century farm. This happens to be Glen Shima's century farm. There’s also the Sedlecek’s farm that has been there for 100 years and is a prominent feature of the countryside. This is an example of a 100 year old house that you may not think of it. But I was at the Smithsonian Institute a while back and a replica of this house was shown in the Smithsonian Institute for its historical qualities of balloon frame construction overall. There are several well maintained and restored barns along the route overall. From the point of view of such things as archeological materials, one would have to go to the Historical Society list, but there would be such things as historical graves in the area and other historical attributes. I know on my farm, which is along Sugar Bottom Road, we frequently find Indian arrowheads just as we walk along in the fields or on some of the roadways. There is a lot of recreational activities along Sugar Bottom Road and off of Sugar Bottom Road. There is the Sugar Bottom recreation area, which is a federal area. There’s the State MacBride nature area. There’s the Historical Society prairie and there’s lots of biking, hiking and water sports. This is just a couple of pictures that I took. Pointing out the entrance just off Sugar Bottom of the Sugar Bottom site, and Lake MacBride Nature and Recreation Area. These attract literally thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of visitors a year and are very important from educational points of view as well. In addition, there are the lakes or Coralville Lake and Lake MacBride attracting all kinds of people to the area with all of the water sports. It was just after a snowstorm when I was taking these pictures, and low and behold, there are bike riders out in the countryside. One study that I attended recently was talking about maintaining the scenic qualities of the areas, such as the areas that I’m illustrating here. It was pointed out by the speaker that 10% of development changes irreversibly 50% of the viewscape. 10% development spoils 50% of the viewscape. We need to try to achieve some kind of balance in maintaining some sights as scenic and scenic highways, with the scenic attributes that are present would be one way of addressing this kind of change. Thank you.

Carsner: I had just a few concluding remarks for the presentation of what is the next step that we are talking about. I know that you are currently working on the Transportation Management Plan of making some determinations of when roads would be upgraded. Certainly, we think that a scenic roads ordinance would be a very important part of that and also with the 5 Year Road Plan, we think that a scenic roads ordinance would have a significant effect on that as well as the Land Use plans. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the North Corridor Plan and any others that may come along. Then, the last point is developing a proposal to develop some kind of study committee for a scenic roads ordinance that would have a broad representative of citizens of people across the County, both from town and from rural areas. These are a few of the ideas of where a scenic roads ordinance might most directly impact some of the things that the County is involved in. That’s the end of our presentation and we’d be glad to handle any questions you might have.

Thompson: I have a question. Once you’ve done the inventory and you’ve identified the scenic attributes of the road, then how are those protected?

Carsner: Well, there’s all sorts. It’s usually through land use plans. In the areas that are near the road, you would decrease the density. Or, you could begin to develop some conservation easements. You go into the whole bag of planning tools that you have through the Land Use Plan. That’s why I said you have to really integrate this into land use planning and transportation planning.

Thompson: I was thinking, say, in terms of a scenic barn. Would we protect that barn then and say that has to be maintained and can never be removed?

Carsner: Well, you talk about design standards and I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t understand every part of the Administrative Code. But, you create some design standards so that things couldn’t be built next to it, to detract from it. Pat, do you have any input?

Cancilla: I think that what happens is that the interest of the individuals along the road, the designation of a scenic road, challenges people to maintain that kind of attribute and they feel more responsible for keeping it up. If it’s going to go, let’s say into an urban development, then there’s no sense for keeping it up, so that the people become challenged and take on the responsibilities of maintaining it. You use your zoning, you use your things like you’re looking at right now, with regard to the amount of traffic on the road. One of the things that you’re looking at is to say, instead of having a one per 3 acre development there, you’re going to only go to one home per 20. You change the zoning and then you use such things as conservation subdivision design. The things that (inaudible) has talked about of tucking away the houses, maybe in the woods away from putting them lock step along the scenic road, trying to maintain some of the scenic attributes. Does that help?

Thompson: Yes.

I-SOARR Representative Laurie Tulchin: Can I just make one comment? The scenic roads aren’t into this design to protect the road unless the attributes alongside the road that would help designate it as a scenic road. It’s not designed really to tell people what to do with the structures on their property, and it’s not designed to protect barns or things like that. This is basically an ordinance that’s out there to help protect the road and help guide the Supervisors in determining which roads would get upgraded and which would get widened and which would get straightened and that kind of thing.

Carsner: If the road is maintained at it’s current level, there is a greater incentive to keep an old barn, for instance.

Thompson: Yes.

Carsner: But, if the area is changed significantly, there’s much less incentive to keep an old barn.

Jordahl: You mentioned standards for density of development alongside of what would be a scenic road as one of the criteria for designating it as a scenic road. I’m wondering, if from the ordinances that you’ve studied you could give us an example of what that density is or should be or do you have a recommendation for what our density should be for such a designation?

Carsner: I don’t have anything specific at this point.

Jordahl: The point of my question is that there exists a certain density along these roads, currently that is sufficient to motivate us to put them on the 5 Year Road Plan for improvement because the current traffic volume outstrips the quality of the road that is currently there. So, I’m curious as to whether the standards that would be recommended under such a scenic roads ordinance would in fact apply to Sugar Bottom or Newport Road, based on the density of existing development and traffic volumes.

Cancilla: Well, first of all, your densities are a public health density. It’s one per 5 acres in the Lake MacBride water shed. One per 3 acres in the Coralville water shed and one per one acre elsewhere and that’s related to septic tanks. That’s the greatest density that you would try to work toward. I don’t believe that it’s an absolute. That that’s what has to be. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, you’re looking at criteria now to change that. When the road traffic gets to be 700 on one of these roads, then you’re going to change the density to one in 20. Right? You’re going to have conservation subdivision design as one of the requirements that you’re going to be put in. So, you have flexibility then in what you do. I would point out to you that if you maintain the road and not upgrade it for these 2 roads that we just happen to be discussing here, you would save the County somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 or $8 million on new road construction. Just by designating it as scenic road, maintaining it and increasing the density so that you can maintain it’s scenic qualities over all that. When Connie (inaudible) made a presentation here, she asked, what is this going to look like 50 years from now when our children and grandchildren are here. It would be nice if somewhere in the County we had some scenic areas to say, this is what it was like in the old days. I think that’s a compelling argument to look at. Maybe preserving some of the qualities that are here.

Jordahl: The question of density is being talked about in 2 different ways here and I think it’s important for us to draw a line between the density of approved future development and the existing density of development along a road. I think when we’re talking about criteria for designating a road as appropriate for this kind of designation… What I heard from your presentation was that we would look at what is the density of development along that road, not what may be or what is approved, what the current standards allow, but rather what is the density. That is also the criteria by which we assess the situation when we look at the 5 Year Road Plan. I’m suggesting that the density is already great along these 2 roads and it’s reflected in the traffic volumes that we see, which are already about the 700 vehicle limit that you’re discussing.

Cancilla: I think we’re in a circle here. What you have to try to do, if you want to create an area in the County with scenic roads, is you have to break the circle or break the cycle and say this is something that we think is important. I would point out to you that that whole area of the County does not have a County park in this whole vast North Corridor. Nor do I hear that there is a plan for one. Well, a scenic road is in a way, a county park. It has the potential of drawing people up to take a drive. The people who come out there now, in the fall, come out to see the colors. Come out to see those kinds of things that are present in the countryside. It’s something that we should strive to maintain. These roads lead to recreation areas, but they’re not County recreation areas. It would be an additional attraction for people to come to a scenic road and to see the distance that are there. Although you say there is development along those roads now, I will share with each of you this book that is filled with photographs. There are 2 of them. I just went along Sugar Bottom Road. I went along Newport Road and photographed them and look at them. There are scenic vistas that are vast. That cover huge landscapes. So, you shouldn’t have the attitude, well, it’s ruined now because there’s development there. It’s something that we want to say as some attributes that are worth preserving.

Jordahl: I guess I wouldn’t accept the characterization that it’s ruined now because there is development there. I think our concern is providing a safe transportation and infrastructure and in part for the very recreational uses that you point to. Prairie Du Chien Road is an example where we have federal funding paying for the bulk of the cost of adding a paved shoulder for bicycle transportation to separate that from other road traffic. I was struck by your picture here of the bicyclists riding in the snow. What that picture really needed to make the point from my point of view would be a couple of cars meeting along with them. There was barely room for the bicycles to have dry pavement there. Let alone what would happen with traffic or on a corner with traffic. What we’re aiming at here is not some sort of, with the road plan, is not a recognition or surrender to development, but rather a recognition of our responsibility to provide safety for people who do want to do that recreational use out there.

Carsner: I think there is a difference of opinion as to whether bicycling on the shoulder of a road where people travel 70 miles per hour is safer. There is also, I think, a difference of opinion as to whether those roads are safe enough to hold present traffic. There’s a difference of opinion and that’s part of what our scenic roads ordinance is talking about. That you create different criteria than what we’re currently examining as to whether a road surface should be changed.

Thompson: One of the reasons that those roads have been identified as future arterial roads is that they don’t handle just local traffic, they handle all those people that go back and forth to the reservoir or to the lake or to the destinations that you mentioned as being important on those roads. When you designate a road as a scenic byway, how do you minimize that traffic? Do you have to build another road so people can get to the lake?

Cancilla: No. You do things like lower the traffic speed on the road. There are all kinds of flexible designs. This is put out by the U.S. Department of Transport Federal Highway Administration. You don’t have to build super highways to get from point A to B. There are many flexible ways of building roads that are safe, that are scenic, that meet the needs overall. Carol, if you have roads that are being built out there that attract development and you build wall to wall houses out there, the parks are not going to have the same kind of attraction for people. It will be clogged with traffic so that people may not want to use them. Just because you build these kinds of roads doesn’t mean to say that you’re going to improve the usage of things that are at the end or make them any more accessible. You may clog the roads so much that they’re inaccessible.

Thompson: Well, we have good news for you. Our last letter from Jeff Davidson, the Transportation Planner, he included a paragraph that he has been looking into some alternative highway roadway design standards from the state of Vermont that he heard about. So, I’m sure that if you could give us the citations for those books, he’d be interested in looking in that in terms of making our future road plan.

Cancilla: I think we shared a lot of this information already with Jeff Davidson, with some of the people from the Secondary Roads Department. We have been trying to work with them in order to bring some of these things up to the level of discussion so that we have alternatives that can be presented to you. The kinds of things that you’ve done this year, in terms of opening up the 5 Year Road Study, so that you can have comments, this kind of an approach is involving the citizens in a worthwhile way. We are working with you and with the road department to try to present this material.

Stutsman: I’d like to hear from Mary Ellen and then Al. Mary Ellen, can you identify yourself?

Mary Ellen Hill: I would just like to say that we were asked some time ago by one of the Board of Supervisors to come up with some ideas to present something other than the nimbi type of idea. We were asked to look into other plans that might work. We have done that. We have spent considerable time trying to get this scenic ordinance plan put together for your opinion. We hope that you will take the time to study this, rather than just saying that it’s not going to work with the zoning the way that it is. Please take time to look at this. Please consider that Door County in Wisconsin is comprised of the rustic roads. They handle 30 times the traffic that any of these roads that we’re talking about handle. They are working. They are working well and people are able to get on those roads and enjoy those roads. They actually build roads like snakes going through the roads. They’ve got bumps in them to slow the traffic down. The traffic can be controlled by the speed limit. If we want to preserve and conserve the natural beauty that is here, we have to be open to considering new ideas, that people are spending time trying to come up with ideas. To help you, to help all of us to realize a life that we love here that we’re wanting to say and preserve for those that come after us. Money and development is not all there is that makes a community. It’s the enjoyment of life. The enjoyment of taking a ride to the Country. I own those gardens out on Newport. I have people coming here from all over the world to enjoy my gardens. The one thing I hear the most is we didn’t realize that Iowa was this beautiful. I had a group from California come in. They never dreamed it. They never dreamed they would be sitting out in the country having an English formal tea in Iowa, overlooking the most beautiful countryside that they can imagine. This is from California. Do we want to lose that or do we want to save that? If you start putting these roads in, to strip out all of these trees, to strip out all of these wonderful elements that make us what we are, then you have lost sight of the future. We and those things are the future. You’ve got to look beyond the day. You’ve got to look beyond 10,000 acres that are zoned for development. You’ve got to look at tomorrow and tomorrow is not March 3rd. Tomorrow is the future and we’ve got to plan for it. It’s so discouraging to hear these things coming back to us that we heard over and over and over. It seems like it’s a stone wall that you’re not willing to go beyond. We’re working with you. Please understand we’re working with you to save what we have so that future generations can enjoy what we have enjoyed. It’s our duty. It’s our responsibility. Don’t come up against a stone wall. Please.

Stutsman: Al, did you have a comment?

Miller: Yes I did. I was provided a copy of the Wisconsin Administration Administrative Code awhile back. There’s a couple items in it. I’ll redirect that on account of what Carol was talking about. A rustic road is a low volume, local used public road which is usable year round. That’s directly out of the code. The rustic road functions as a local access road. One which serves the adjacent property owners and those wishing to travel by auto, bicycle or hiking, for purposes of enjoying its rustic features. This would generally preclude designations as a rustic road, any road serving as a collector or an arterial. That was left out of the presentation and I was just wondering what comments that they had.

Carsner: Well, the comment is that I think again, it’s a difference of opinion as to what is a collector or arterial road. Just to give an example from Iowa City, we just had the 1st Avenue debate come up and I think the lesson from 1st Avenue is that just by calling a road a collector road doesn’t make it a collector road or an arterial road. You have to, in this instance, you’d have to rebuild these roads to really make them collector or arterial roads. It becomes a decision that you make as to whether you want this road to become a bigger, wider, flatter, straighter road or whether you want the road to be maintained in it’s current condition. Just by calling it an arterial or collective road doesn’t make it one. Again, there’s a difference of opinion as to whether some of these roads should be collector or arterial roads. There’s a difference of opinion as to whether they should be changed or left as they are.

Jordahl: It isn’t, Tom, a question of us defining a road as collector. We don’t put up signs that say this is a collector road. It’s the way that we use them. The traffic volumes themselves speak. You just talk about voting with your feet. People vote with their driving, that’s where they go.

Carsner: As we discussed in the 5 Year Road Plan, I think there’s a difference of opinion as to whether some of these roads are busy enough to merit what you’re considering paving.

Stutsman: Mary Ellen’s comment. I’m sorry that the Board’s giving the opinion that we’re closed to this. I don’t get that sense at all. I think this is a concept and I’m certainly willing to continue discussion on it when we work on this road management thing to make a decision today that we’re going to go ahead with this, no. This is the first time that I’ve been exposed to this concept. It’s interesting information and I’m certainly interested in knowing more and finding out how it can work, but it’s part of the process and I would venture to guess I think the rest of the Board shares my feelings, too, about continuing the discussion on this.

Jordahl: Another idea that strikes me as pertinent to this. You have the rustic road thing in Wisconsin and that seems to me to be a variance of the idea with traffic volumes. But, certainly, around the country you see scenic roads that have vistas. You go out west and you’ve got the mountains and what-not, deserts and you drive by. It might be an interstate highway, but you’ve got scenery and places to pull off and so forth. I don’t think that there is an inherent hostility between improving the road and providing bicycle trails with having scenery to look at. The road doesn’t make it so.

Carsner: I think the road sets a tone for the neighborhood and for the area. As we’ve seen, with Prairie Du Chien, it changes the context of the area. If you widen the right-of-way, flatten, straighten and pave it, it changes the area significantly. By the nature of the road surface and the right of way of the road it creates a tone for the area, that I think I would disagree, that if you do change that significantly, it does change the scenic nature of the area.

Jordahl: What do you propose to do with the existing zoning in the North Corridor?

Cancilla: There are many, many things that one could do. One is to do nothing. You could use overlays. You could purchase property rights. You could transfer property rights. You could down zone. You could eliminate the zoning. You could start over. There are no end of things that you could do, but right now, the decision that was made in 1960, when the circumstances were altogether different are driving what it is that you do. Your thoughts are focused on, we’ve got to get roads out there because we’ve got all of this land to develop. But, quite frankly, I do not see what your plan is. You haven’t even got a usable map to show where these places are that you’re trying to get the roads to. You are picking an area that is so huge, that it encompasses Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin, in terms of an area, and it’s ripe for development. You haven’t even said where development is going to occur in that area. You have somehow, a concept, that we have to get these roads out there because we’ve made this pledge to develop. Yet, you don’t have a development plan. Honestly, you don’t.

Duffy: Pat, I’ve been listening to this and I wasn’t going to say anything today about development, but as far as Prairie Du Chien Road, I didn’t vote for that for development. I would have felt better if they took the middle alignment, but maybe you read in the paper here a few days ago that the Coralville Reservoir and Lake MacBride area had about a million visitors last year and it takes in about $50 million for the County. You’re just in a position out there. We have to make these roads safe. What I’ve been doing here, the last 2 or 3 weeks now, I’ve been getting up early in the morning to see how many people walk that winding road. I was passed one morning. I looked at my speedometer and I don’t like to go over 45 on that road. But, I don’t know how fast some people passed me. So, you can see that there has to be something done with it. Now, as far as doing it for people building out there, that’s not the reason why I am. It kind of surprised me, and not to be too critical, that said there should be a County park out there. Adjoining your property. What is it, 26,000 acres of reservoir land? It’d probably be the best park you ever find around. Not to be critical but we have to make these roads safe.

Tulchin: Can I just say something about the safety data and the point system? Carol, you said that the reason some of these roads are on the 5-year Road Plan is because the data points to that. But, I just want to say that the point system was so skewed as to lump a road with 2000 cars a day next to a road that has 700 cars a day given the same point rating. So, the data, and I’m pretty sure our last presentation basically nailed it, the data shows that Newport Road is safer now than it was 5 years ago. Less accidents and there is more cars. So, I really wish everybody would stop pointing to the safety issue, since that’s not even a problem on Newport Road they should unload at this point.

Carsner: I just wanted to make one more point about that. As I said in my presentation, there seems to be a disconnect between the 5 Year Road Plan and the County’s Land Use Plan. As many of you know, I spent several hours with you developing and getting ideas together for the Land Use Plan. It’s a good document with many good priorities in it. But, then you have the 5 Year Road Plan, which doesn’t seem to have any connection to the County Land Use Plan and it seems as if the 5 Year Road Plan trumps everything in the County Land Use Plan. Part of what a scenic roads ordinance is about is bringing those 2 together to unify and harmonize those ideas. That’s why it’s difficult to see where the plan is for development. You say its in the Land Use Plan, but then the Land Use Plan seems to be set aside once you come up with ideas for road construction. I’d like to see those 2 brought together more.

Jordahl: I want to take issue with what I’ve heard, both from you Tom and from you, Pat. Both of you, long friends of mine, we’ve discussed these issues repeatedly in conversations over the years. It seems like some differences have developed between us on this. But, I find it inaccurate to say that there is no connection between the Land Use Plan, the North Corridor Plan, the Traffic Management Study that’s proposed to become a plan is in fact pointed to by the Land Use Plan and the 5 Year Road Construction Plan. On the contrary, we’ve worked together for years to talk about planning and the importance of planning and this is what we have done. We have got some facts on the ground, we’ve got existing zoning, we’ve got some existing houses and we have some already approved plats for new houses to be built. We have a Land Use Plan that we’ve worked on together that’s been adopted, and the plan, I said, if we had a plan and by god, I was going to follow it. The plan says develop a Transportation Management Plan to assure that the infrastructure necessitated by new development is in place. Well, that’s what we’re doing. That’s what Prairie du Chien’s project was, that’s what the plans for Newport and Sugar Bottom are. This is an outcome of the planning process. I think that it’s unsatisfactory to you because of the implications that it bears for changes in the neighborhood that we all care about in terms of its beauty, in terms of the rights of people to have the quality of life they wish to have. But one of those rights is the right to the value of their property. That’s one of the purposes of zoning, is to ensure that people’s investment is safeguarded, that they can continue the land use that they have dreamt of, that they have made, and that their money is behind. We go in there and say all right, you’re going to be able to put down one house per 20 acres here instead of one per 3, as the current standards indicate. That’s seen, I think R.J. would back me up on this one in terms of the proposal that’s being made, as a kind of interim step for a road if it’s below the level where it needs to be approved and to stop the Board from approving additional development along it and yet preserve some property rights for all the people who may have ag zoned land there. Let them go to 1 and 20, OK, but it’s going to stay gravel. The roads up there are already passed the point where they should improved to hard surface roads in terms of the traffic volume, so the reduction in traffic density isn’t a mechanism to permanently keep the traffic at that level. But rather it is a mechanism to forestall massive development of those roads until the road is improved. But the idea of not improving a road that’s already passed the point where it should be improved is like the planning process says that that level has already been reached. That’s the unsatisfactory element, the jangling here, that the result of the planning process says these roads need to be fixed, and you’re saying let’s not. But the implication that was said here, the Road Ordinance is not designed to tell people what to do with their property, I think it’s exactly what you want to do. I think you want to tell people along that road what to do with their property. Basically, don’t develop it. I wondered if you’d dispute that.

Carsner: Well, I’d rather than speak for myself than having words put in my mouth.

Jordahl: So would I.

Carsner: Again, there’s disagreement as to whether these roads are at a level where they need improvement. But when I talk about the Land Use Plan, I talk about things like avoiding incompatible uses, protecting the environment, preserving farm land. Obviously, the Land Use document is one that many things can be pulled out of. Those are the guiding principles, though, of the Land Use Plan, and those are the things that I’m concerned about.

Cancilla: Yes, I would like to second that. There are many elements in the plan that speak to preserving the environment, looking at such things as preserving farmland... Jonathan, if you look at the North Corridor Plan, which is now just about 5 years out, it says we encourage development in the fringe areas. Only in the preamble does it say that the North Corridor is where we expect development to occur. When you look at the goals, the goal says encourage development in the fringe areas where infrastructure is present, that can be used to promote development in the most economical way. The only statement that I can find in the North Corridor plan about road management is the one statement which says we would expect developers to pay part of the fees for the impact of development on such things as roads. There is not another word in there about all of the things that you’ve said. You may argue that the Comprehensive Plan takes precedence over it.

Jordahl: Yes, I may.

Cancilla: But you’re using the North Corridor Plan as your planning tool and you are saying that’s where we’re going to develop because it’s in the North Corridor Plan. But what I’m saying is, it isn’t in there from point of view of the way that you all have done it, and it’s time to come and revisit.

Jordahl: This is, once again, I feel like I’m having words put in my mouth. You’re saying that you are saying this, Jonathan, and that is not what I’m saying, Pat. I’m saying that the Land Use Plan has been developed by your own recognition here more recently than the North Corridor Plan. It is time to revisit the North Corridor Plan, but that North Corridor Plan will be revisited in the context and framework of the Land Use Plan that was approved December 31 of ’98. That plan points to the need for the Road Management Plan that, as Tom’s been saying, articulates these things, brings them together. The major flaws in the North Corridor Plan are that it was not developed in the framework of the existing Land Use Plan, and the existing Land Use Plan is what we must look to for guidance in our County wide responsibility regarding the roads. It tells us to develop a Road Management Plan, which we’re doing. If planning is what we should be doing, it’s what we are doing. The process remains open. Carol has cited that Jeff Davidson was going to bring some of the Scenic Road Ordinance stuff to us in the context of that Road Management Plan. It’s ongoing. I don’t want to give the impression myself that I’m rejecting what you’re bringing to us. I think it’s great that you have looked at the scenic roads stuff and you’ve brought some more of that to us, Jeff’s looking at some of it. We’re going to look at that in the context of this Roads Plan, which is itself in the context of the overall Land Use Plan. I think we should reopen the North Corridor Plan for revision. I’m not against what you’re saying, but I want to make sure that we see clearly where we are and whose ox gets gored by this thing along the way. We got to make sure that we take everything into account.

Stutsman: Mary Ellen?

Hill: Jonathan, I would…I don’t understand what (inaudible) proposing to you myself, maybe that’s true, I have been out of the picture a little bit, but I don’t think we said any place in here that the roads can not be improved. I don’t think that was mentioned. I think it was mentioned that they could be paved. What we’re saying and what we’re trying to reiterate is that the roads maintain their rural integrity, that the rural area maintain its rural integrity, that when you come through, in contrary, I’m sorry to contradict you, but many trees where taken out of Prairie du Chien. I counted over 200 that were tagged. That is not "no trees". We’re saying this road can be improved. If it needs to be paved to bring it up to scale, then it needs to be paved to bring it up to what needs to be done. What we’re saying is maintain the rural integrity of the area. Do not strip out every tree. We can learn to live with trees. We don’t need a hundred foot clear cut zone. We need to maintain the integrity of the beauty that was given us. We didn’t create that, that was given to us, and it’s our duty to maintain it. We’re not saying you can’t upgrade the road and pave it, it needs to be done. But I do believe your figures are skewed. I live on that road. That is not a busy road. It does not need the excesses that you’re considering. If it does reach that point, then do it in tune with what is there. That’s what we’re saying. But we’re not saying it can’t be maintained and upgraded. That’s not what this ordinance says.

Carsner: For example, this picture on the front here even shows a blacktop road, but obviously it has maintained much of its… it’s relatively narrow and it’s curvy. There are roads that have been resurfaced, but they maintain the roadbed, they maintain the right-of-way distance. Those are possibilities that we certainly want to put on the table.

Thompson: Well, I don’t see… I live on New West Overlook, that’s where I walk, and I don’t see how the design of that reconstruction doesn’t meet… I mean, it’s still curvy, it’s still got trees…

Carsner: Some trees, not as many as it used to.

Thompson: Well, the Sumac is growing back at a rapid rate. It’ll have prairie on the sides of it, and it shows every indication that it’ll be just as lovely when the prairie plants grown in as it was before.

Carsner: My personal opinion is that that could have been done narrower, containing the old roadbed and, with a resurfacing, could have maintained much of its former ambiance. It’s a different road than it was before.

Thompson: If you’re an old woman riding a bike on it, it’s a lot safer now.

Carsner: Well, again, that’s a difference of opinion, I think.

Hill: I wondered if we… Something that sort of concerned me, and I have not mentioned it before, but it (inaudible). As you all know and remember years ago, we were encouraged to plant (inaudible). That’s the best. We found out since then that it is not something that we really wanted to do. Now I have no information, no data or anything. I am a little bit concerned, though, what happens when they start planting Black Eyed Susans in the prairie area along the highway. Are those going to infiltrate into everyone’s yards and lawns and (inaudible). The other question I’d like to bring is, I’m going to start a prairie myself this year, so I’m not against prairie. However, I only know of one bird that nests in prairie grasses, and that’s the red wing blackbird. Trees are important, trees are very important.

Stutsman: A couple more comments and I think we’re going to have to move on.

Tom Foster: My name is Tom Foster. I’m on Newport Road. I gave a presentation back at the work session on the 5 Year Road Plan that clearly showed that the data in terms of traffic counts, accidents per mile on Newport Road are well down in the middle of your seal coat roads. I think it’s wrong to characterize the current level of use as something that’s among the worst roads of the County. Also, to me, just standing out there and looking at headway time, the time intervals between cars, except for the 20 to 40 minute rush hour, is well over a minute most of the day, and that’s not really a busy road right now.

Stutsman: Did you have a comment?

Welsh: The concept of a Scenic Road Ordinance or plan is one that appeals to me. Just the idea that we would not have a continuous concrete maze. I think where we get into problems is, I’m sorry that the presentation has centered on Newport Road and Sugar Bottom. I think we have to look at the big picture, and that is in the County, would we like to have some roads that preserve their scenic value? Now, to me, I find myself saying yes. I would like for the Board of Supervisors to take what steps it can, long range, to preserve some of the scenic value, Mary Ellen, I’m going to say the heritage, the farm land. Yes. The other thing which I hear being challenged, and I guess I have been one that’s always gone along with the assumption that as volumes increase on a road, you need to make it straighter, wider. I think what I hear people saying, to me, that makes some sense is that’s a self fulfilled prophecies. Maybe you don’t need to do that. Maybe you don’t always just keep building to accommodate more and more cars. They used, first time I heard of this, was when I think Mary Ellen mentioned about Door County I have traveled to scenic places and right, the roads are not wide roads, and there should have been a lot of traffic on it, because people like myself have been there to see the beauty of it. Sometimes I’ve been in lines of cars where I could walk faster than I could drive. Gee, that’s beautiful. I guess 2 things I would have you think about is forget, some of these people will shoot me out of my head, but forget about Newport Road and Sugar Bottom Road at this time and ask yourself, do we think that having a Scenic Road Ordinance in Johnson County would make some sense? A guy like myself says yes. The other I guess I would have you think as you work on your Road Plan and I recommend you (inaudible), is to question the assumption, which I’ve gone on for years, is that as volume increases, you have to make the road straighter, wider and all. Is that true? I think that maybe I’ve come to the feeling that maybe it is not true. I think if you go the road of saying, and I think you mentioned Jeff Davidson on this, to mesh those kinds of presentations, to look at… Do we really want a Scenic Road Ordinance in the County. Again, I would say, forget about Sugar Bottom Road and Newport and look at it globally at this point, County wide. In other words, I don’t think (inaudible) can be that far apart.

Stutsman: One last comment in the back and I think we need to wind this up.

Larry Myers: Yes. My name is Larry Myers. The purpose of the Scenic Road Ordinance is not to single out Newport or Sugar Bottom Road. They just happen to be the 2 flashpoints right now. If you went through the County, I’m sure there are a number of roads that would fall under this ordinance that are well worth saving. Charlie was quoted one time after Prairie du Chien was done that he went out to see it and he expected that there would be all kinds of people coming in saying we want this done to our road. Well, I happen to disagree with that. I think with a Scenic Roads Ordinance, you would have an awful lot of people coming in and saying we want this done to our road, too. You’re hearing a lot about Newport and Sugar Bottom right now, it’s because we keep coming in here and harping on it. If the system is in place, I think you’ll be hearing from people out at Rapid Creek Road and a number of roads out in the west part of the County and the south part of the County. It is meant to be a County wide thing, not just to single out our neighborhood.

Tulchin: Can I just make a comment about zoning? The City of Iowa City downzones areas all the time without feeling any repercussions. (Inaudible) was downzoned and nobody went crazy and sued them and said that they’d lost their property rights. Downzoning is certainly something that the City feels compelled to do whenever it suits them. I don’t see why the County is so afraid to even investigate overlay zoning or downzoning. The last comment I wanted to make about resurfacing, talking to Chuck, he saying resurfacing is done all over the City, there’s no repercussions from that. Sycamore Road was resurfaced. They didn’t widen it, straighten it or do anything. They just went it and surfaced that one, so resurfacing is certainly an option that the City does all the time and they don’t understand. I know talking to Chuck personally, he can’t understand why nobody will investigate resurfacing Newport Road. He says it’s certainly an option that they’ll do.

Stutsman: Downzoning can be done voluntarily. It’s not something that can be done manditorily. Anybody that wants to come in, I’m sure the Board would be more than happy to listen to any proposals for downzoning of those residential areas up there.

Tulchin: Well, Jonathan posed the question what do you intend to do about…We just want to put a general guideline for a Scenic Roads Ordinance. Al Miller decided to take this to task and read something out of a specific ordinance. We haven’t gotten an attorney together, we don’t have all the details worked out. Jonathan puts us on the spot and wants to know what we intend to do about the zoning in the North Corridor, and it’s obviously something that was not meant for this meeting. This meeting was just for the Scenic Roads Ordinance, or as a guideline we hope that you consider. I just want to address the zoning thing. It’s not that big of an obstacle, and downzoning occurs all over the place. It’s certainly something that people should be willing to consider.

Stutsman: OK. I’d like to…

Lehman: I just wanted to ask R.J., do you have any knowledge of anyone in that area asking for downzoning? There’s people out there farming residentially zoned ground.

Moore: (Inaudible) zoned ground, you could start the trend.

Duffy: Wouldn’t that be all right, Pat, to downzone?

Moore: Forgo the fees. That’s been a policy that Rick and (inaudible).

Stutsman: Oh is that if somebody voluntarily wants to come in and downzone their land? Yes.

Jordahl: Do you want to restate that, Sally. I think (inaudible) be good if we had that more publicly known.

Stutsman: Yes. If people are willing to voluntary downzone their land from residential back to Ag, that the County has a policy of waiving the rezoning fees to do that.

Lehman: That way we could factor in less residential ever being out there. That’s a factor we can consider too if people were to step up to the plate and want to downzone what it now agricultural ground although it’s zoned residential.

Jordahl: It would be even more convincing than a petition.

Lehman: I think Bob Welsh brings up as a contradictive point that he doesn’t live out in that area but he enjoys driving out there. Well, if we designate scenic roads, even if it’s in a (inaudible) area, if people wanted to drive down there it would create more traffic, so you create yourself a dilemma, but if something could be factored in, I appreciate the information you brought us. I think we have a lot stuff here to digest and put into a package.

Stutsman: Yes, I agree. I think it’s the beginning of an ongoing discussion about the consideration of an ordinance. I don’t want to think that the Board is closed to it. I think it’s something that definitely, we want to continue to talk about.

Cancilla: We’d like to let you borrow these photographs.

Stutsman: Sure.

Cancilla: We have a copy of the presentation which we would like you to have.

Stutsman: Was that what was on the email?

Cancilla: Yes.

Stutsman: All right. Very good.

Tulchin: I just wanted to bring up one quick point. When Al was talking about Wisconsin laws, (inaudible) road view boulevard and local lease public road. When I talked to the State of Wisconsin about what was the traffic count for low volume, (inaudible) designated traffic count, because they consider it to be interpreted what low volume is. In some areas, 1,000, in some areas 2,000, in some areas 100. It is just an interpreted word. That’s why they designated it in there the way that they did, because (inaudible). The other point is that about the collector of the arterial roads being included. The State laws says generally be included. That means that they leave it, they try to leave it open to interpretation of the people that are reviewing a Scenic Roads Ordinance.

Stutsman: All right, good.

Duffy: Sally, could I just say a few words.

Stutsman: Just a few words.

Duffy: I said this the last time. The problem with the roads out there, there’s 2 major problems. When the reservoir power dam was built, we lost a lot of roads. Where Anchorage Road is out there, they used to come out on Prairie du Chien Road, wouldn’t even go on the south part of Newport Road. That we can’t do anything about. The big item in the past compared to other counties, and that’s no fault of us, that was way before we were Supervisors, and maybe before you folks were even born, but this County, it’s not 150 feet from fence line to fence line, like most of the rest of the counties. A good example of that, take Morse Road over to Cedar County and see what I mean. We don’t have any shoulders on the road and it’s too narrow of a space, and that’s the reason why these trees are encroaching on the roads.

Tulchin: I think the roads are encroaching on the trees.

Duffy: No. As far as the (inaudible), I told you last time, I counted 500 trees. I started counting them on the fence line of my farm and I thought I’m going to stop here, I’m getting tired of counting all these trees, so I’m not against trees. It’s just the problem out there and all these visitors, something has to be done. Somebody brought up the south of town. If I was a visitor in Iowa, I’d head toward the Amish, I believe. Anyway, that’s the problem. We’ve lost roads and they’re too narrow. I don’t think it’ll ever be corrected in the whole County, but the State’s watching us IWV Road. There won’t be any more cap on that road…

Stutsman: Resurfacing.

Duffy:…and there’s not any shoulder on it until you get way over to on the other side of (inaudible) where they meet. The Iowa County. There was about a mile there. There was enough space (inaudible) shoulder, and here’s Iowa County, it’s 150 feet. There’s 2 problems right there. The trees that were lost out there, Lake MacBride and Coralville Reservoir. Some time maybe I’ll just read that and I can prove that.

Jordahl: Trees on Prairie du Chien Road. First of all, I led the Board in changing the design of the road, requesting it and asking Secondary Roads to redesign the road so as to save numerous trees in the designated sensitive area to the east of that first corner on Prairie du Chien Road. The design was changed to save trees. We also save trees in people’s front yards on that roads, working with the citizens.

Tulchin: That’s only after they got an appraisal and they fought over it.

Jordahl: People got involved and they worked with the system and the system worked. Trees were saved in that project, and I worked to save trees in that project. The thing that I would like to point to is bicycles as an alternative form a transpiration. I don’t know if anybody went to the gas station this morning on their way here, but the idea that we’re working toward here is a system of trails in the County that can serve 2 purposes, not only recreation but also transportation. I myself as a bicyclist am not eager to go on Sugar Bottom Road or Newport on my bike because it isn’t safe. With paved shoulders, I would love to ride out there knowing that I’m not going to have somebody running up behind me and somebody else coming the other way who are very familiar with that road and thinking they can drive fast.

Tulchin: When was the last time a bicyclist was hurt on Newport Road?

Jordahl: Gee, I don’t know.

Stutsman: We don’t want the first time, Laurie.

Jordahl: I certainly don’t want to be the first myself.

Tulchin: (Inaudible) to and from work, and I like Newport a lot better than Prairie du Chien.

Stutsman: OK. There’s lots of room for differences of opinion on this whole discussion. I appreciate you coming forth to the Board bringing this forward and we will take it under consideration and thank you for your time.

Carsner: When is the next meeting on the 5 Year Road Plan? I know you’ve got the Road Management on the 29th.

Stutsman: 29th, yes, at 1:30. I think that 5 Year Road Plan… I’d have to check on that.

Jordahl: 29th at 1:30, I’ve got the…yes, that’s the Road Management.

Stutsman: Was that on the…I’ve got a work session on April 11. Is that what’s that’s for, Carol? All I’ve got is a work session.

Jordahl: That’s P and Z at 9:00.

Peters: Yes, that’s the work session.

Stutsman: OK. Then I don’t know when…

Peters: Actually, that won’t be coming back until it’s all ready to send to the State.

Stutsman: That needs to go into the State by April 15, doesn’t it? OK. I’m thinking it’s some time in April but we’ll have to check and let you know when that is. Mike Gardner’s on vacation right now, so we’ll check with him when he gets back and let you know. I know we’ve talked about some dates, I just don’t have them written down. I thought I did, but I don’t.

Carsner: OK.

Tulchin: Well, Jonathan, you said (inaudible). What are we doing then?

Jordahl: Sally was just discussing that.

Stutsman: We’re going to be working with Jeff Davidson and staff on April 29 to look at this…

Carsner: March 29.

Stutsman: Oh, I’m sorry, March 29, at 1:30, the Road Management study. That’ll be a work session.

Jordahl: It sounds like Jeff’s been working on this deal here, so you might want to deliver some of this information to him.

Tulchin: (Inaudible).

Jordahl: He’s a good guy.

Tulchin: He’s one of us.

Jordahl: We’re all one of us, Laurie. It’s a system where we get to work together.

Stutsman: Laurie, that’s the thing that I don’t want it to become. Us and them. I think we need to work real hard to reach compromise and something that we all can live with, and that’s going to mean give and take. That’s going to mean on both sides give and take. Is there anything else that we need to discuss?  I’m done.

Stutsman: OK. I think that takes care of the agenda, so we are adjourned.

Carsner: Thank you.

Lehman: Thank you.

Adjourned at 11:47 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary