• Work Session: Response to Environmental Assessment of a Proposed Lease for Corps Property (Former Girl Scout Campsite)
• Report (Lehman): Iowa City Sycamore Mall TIF Project

Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 8:00 a.m. Members present were: Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Stutsman credited Assistant Planner Dan Swartzendruber with writing the letter and giving the Board a draft to review. Swartzendruber said he had quite a bit of help. Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said that they had a short period of time and Swartzendruber devoted 98% of his time to it. Dvorak said that they tried to respond to Zambrana’s proposal for the Corps and the Board’s questions. They tried to identify the weaknesses in the proposal and questions that they didn’t seem to answer well. A concern raised was the fact that the director always alluded to the fact that the roads were the County’s problem and they would not review them. However, when Dvorak went through their document, one of their proposals was to evaluate the impact on the community. Dvorak said that Swartzendruber tried to identify some of those issues and put that in part of the proposal. He asked how Stutsman wanted to proceed either going through line by line or taking comments from Board members. Stutsman assumed that Board members have not yet read the proposal. It was suggested that they should read through it. Dvorak said that Swartzendruber would start and break it down.

Swartzendruber said that the 1st page was just an introduction of what is being said in the rest of the memo. It covers all of the issues in a nutshell. Swartzendruber then went into specifics starting with the history and background of what the Girl Scout Camp was for, their uses, and how many buildings they had. It also contains what Muslim Youth Camps of America has proposed. Swartzendruber said that he has yet to hear from the Mississippi Valley Girl Scout Council, because they have to go through archives to find numbers. Swartzendruber said that it is useful to compare what actual uses there were to what is being proposed. Swartzendruber said the woman from the Mississippi Valley Girl Scout Council was hopeful as to whether or not she could dig the records up, if they do in fact exist. He said that it might be more for special events as far as head counts of individuals attending. Swartzendruber said a big comparison was that that was a day camp and the Muslim Youth Camps of America would be an extended stay camp. Stutsman said it was good when he pointed out that obvious difference and what the capacity is, considering the lodge. Swartzendruber said the person he talked to in Rock Island said that it was never an overnight camp. Linn Kinney, a neighbor of the proposed camp, said that she was a Girl Scout leader and there was occasional overnight camping in tents, but it was only 8 or 10 nights a year. There was a general consensus that the camp was primarily a day camp with occasional overnight use.

Duffy asked Swartzendruber what kind power or jurisdiction the County has on federal and state land that they can say County zoning applies. County Attorney’s Intern Mike Obermueller said that that was one of the issues that he and County Attorney Pat White had been working on. He said their focus has been on doing any research needed with regards to what they put on the memo being discussed. Obermueller said that their initial look was that they would have some difficulty enforcing that, but it does not look hopeless yet in regards to enforcing zoning. He said that he is not sure whether or not to take a stance on whether or not their zoning can be enforced in this stage of the environmental process. Dvorak said that he did call the director and ask if there was any possibility of an extension and he received a no, because they have a time limit that they must follow. The best the director could do would be take a fax copy on Monday. Stutsman said, when she went to that informational meeting, they had a pretty aggressive timeline that they were under. Jordahl commented that it was aggressive beyond common sense. He mentioned the question of the DNR purview over this and whether there is any sense in conducting an environmental audit, if there is no possibility of putting in a waste treatment facility. He then asked if there was any news about that. Dvorak replied that no, there was no news.

Stutsman suggested that they begin with transportation infrastructure concern and asked Swartzendruber to start reading. Swartzendruber read from the following from the draft document:

There seems to be a lack of rigorous analysis on the part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and their consultant Zambrana regarding how the proposed use will impact the County’s road infrastructure. Under the Scope of Work (S.O.W.) document for the proposed lease, Section 5.5.6.3, one of the impact categories to be considered includes public facilities and services. Perhaps the largest public facility in this project is the road infrastructure. In order to address this issue thoroughly, it is necessary to examine how this proposed camp would impact the road network in the area. In particular, how the proposed Camp Horizon would effect both 200th St. NE and Scales Bend Road NE. Two Hundredth Street NE provides access to the road system for some of the abutting properties and to the interior subdivision collector roads. Scales Bend Road NE not only provides access for these adjoining properties, and subdivision collector roads, but also serves as the sole access for Jolly Roger Campground and boat launch area.

Over the past five years Johnson County has taken a proactive, rather than a reactive approach to land use planning. In 1996 it adopted an updated North Corridor Plan, and in December of 1998 adopted a new Land Use Plan (The 1998 Johnson County Land Use Plan). These two guiding documents not only identify where and when proposed zoning changes should take place, but also identify standards the development must meet, both on and off-site. The major off-site improvements required by developers concern the County’s roads."

Jordahl asked to back up to the phrase "required by developers." Jordahl asked if Swartzendruber meant required of developers or caused to be required by the activities of developers. Jordahl clarified by asking if Swartzendruber was meaning to say that the County requires them to pay for it or that they are causing the County to pay for it. Swartzendruber said that he could reword it to say it would be required of the developers. Stutsman said that she liked the first line in that paragraph mentioning that the Board was taking a proactive approach. She then asked if there was any need to go through the points specifically. Jordahl said that it seems that there is a point missing. Jordahl mentioned that the phrase, "ensure that the developer pays the cost," should be in there. Swartzendruber said that he could add that. Jordahl read from the Land Use Plan, Minimize conflict, page 14, 3.4. Jordahl mentioned that they should get that out front.

Duffy, referring to page 2, said that the main questions he has been asked is how many individuals are they talking about. He was wondering if 384 was the maximum amount. Swartzendruber said that that would be the maximum.

Swartzendruber interjected that he bulleted some of the Land Use Plan, General Development Policies 4.1 through 4.7, as stated below, to backup the points made at the beginning of the section on transportation infrastructure concerns.

"The Land Use Plan addresses transportation issues throughout the document. (Refer to pages 15 and 22 for specific policies and strategies) The General Development Policy concerning transportation is summarized below:

4.1Continue to plan and improve the transportation system.

4.2Ensure traffic safety.

4.3Participate with JCCOG to coordinate Countywide and regional transportation planning.

4.4Utilize land in a manner that will support public transportation where feasible.

4.5Promote multi-modal transportation corridors, which include biking, hiking and all-purpose trails, where appropriate.

4.5Ensure transportation demands can be accommodated when evaluating rezoning requests.

4.6Minimize the impacts of road building on the environment.

4.7Plan for new roads that are logical and efficient extensions of existing street patterns."

They reviewed the next section:

"Additional Strategies of the 1998 Johnson County Land Use Plan concerning transportation are:

4.1Create and adopt a Transportation Management Plan.

4.2Develop an ordinance stating that proposed developments on existing County roads must dedicate the necessary rights-of-way for future road improvements.

4.3Request that JCCOG develop with Johnson County and the cities of Johnson County, a master transportation plan that links the County and its cities with the region.

4.4Develop criteria to evaluate proposed development on gravel roads.

4.5Develop criteria and an ordinance for dust alleviation."

County Engineer Mike Gardner asked to replace the phrase in the next section regarding having "established thresholds for roads in the County based on their particular classification" with "surface type" instead of "classification". Jordahl said that classification would be like arterial/collector. Stutsman asked if they were ready to go on. Swartzendruber continued reading from the draft document:

"As a response to these policies and the strategies in the Land Use Plan, the Board of Supervisors have recently adopted (June, 2000) Road Performance Standards for county roads. They have established thresholds for roads in the county based on their particular surface type (i.e.; dirt, gravel, chip-seal surface, and paved surface). The threshold criteria consist of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count currently existing on the road and the projected trip generation volume resulting from a proposed development. A proposed development could require the developer make improvements to the road (or wait) until the county has scheduled the road for upgrading before such a proposed development would be approved."

Jordahl, referring to the above paragraph, clarified that instead of "a proposed development could require the developer to make improvements," it should say "County" could require.

Swartzendruber read the following from the draft text:

"A consistent effort has been made by the County since the 1970s to remove oiled chip seal surfaces from the inventory of the County secondary road system. Oiled chip seal is a dust-free surface, but does not have the structural properties of a paved (asphalt or concrete) surface. Both the County Engineer and the IDOT do not recommend upgrading a gravel surface road to an oiled chip-seal surface as an interim measure prior to paving. In addition to creating significant maintenance problems (especially during the inevitable spring thaw), accident data indicate an associated safety issue when gravel roads are converted to a chip-seal surface without first improving the horizontal and vertical geometry of the road. Merely applying a chip-seal surface to the road without improving its geometry will increase vehicle speeds and will result in an increased accident rate."

Swartzendruber began to read the text inserted from the Road Performance Standards:

An excerpt from the Road Performance Standards, reads as follows: "For the purpose of evaluating rezonings and new subdivisions, existing traffic volumes shall be determined by the most recent available traffic count recorded by the Johnson County Department of Secondary Roads, the Johnson County Council of Governments, or the Iowa Department of Transportation, in that order. Projected residential traffic volumes shall be determined by adding to an existing traffic count (1) the number of existing platted lots with direct access multiplied by eight vehicle trips per day, and (2) the estimated density of development from any currently zoned residential property with direct access multiplied by eight vehicle trips per day. Projected commercial and industrial traffic volumes shall be determined by adding to an existing traffic volume the estimated trip generation based on the Trip Generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers." Development on chip-seal roads shall follow the criteria that are listed below:"

Swartzendruber referred to the following text taken directly out of the Road performance Standards:

a.The appropriate traffic volume on an oiled chip-seal road should not exceed 1,000 vehicle trips per day.

b.No rezonings shall be approved on oiled chip sealed roads with projected traffic volume greater than 1,000 vehicles per day unless improvement of said road is scheduled within the next two years of the adopted Johnson County five year road improvement plan.

c.Subdivisions on oiled chip sealed roads with a projected traffic volume greater than 700 vehicles per day shall have approval conditioned on a density of development not to exceed one lot for every 20 acres, using a cluster-type subdivision design where at least 80% of the subdivision consists of a non-buildable outlot.

d.Subdivisions shall not be approved on oiled chip seal roads with a projected traffic volume greater than 1,000 vehicles per day unless improvement of said road is scheduled within the next two years of the adopted Johnson County five year road improvement plan.

e.The preceding vehicle volume thresholds shall be reduced by 50% if the measured 85th percentile speed exceeds the posted speed limit by 15 miles per hour or more.

The preceding vehicle volume thresholds shall be reduced by 50% if horizontal or vertical geometry of said road is judged by the County Engineer to have significant sight distance constraints."

Swartzendruber read the following from the draft text (changes then made to what was read are underlined):

"It is important to note that during the collection of traffic and speed count data performed by the County Engineer’s Office during September of 1998, the 85^th percentile speed averaged approximately 46 mph. This effects criterion ‘e’ above significantly, and supports the premise that the road as currently configured cannot accommodate additional traffic volume."

Duffy asked how the County’s count compares to the DOT counts. He was referred to a list on page 8.

Swartzendruber continued reading (subsequent changes to the text he read are underlined):

As per Section 5.5.6.2 of the S.O.W. document submitted by MYCA, if the proposed camp were to be developed, it would appear that the increased vehicle traffic in the area would be a long-term impact. The continued viability of the road system needs to be addressed and is called for in the S.O.W. document Section 5.5.6.3.

According to the 1998 Johnson County Land Use Plan, if a proposed development necessitates improvements to County infrastructure because of the development, then the developer must pay these costs. It would appear from the information received so far, that the proposed use could generate sufficient trips to warrant improvements to both 200th St. and Scales Bend Rd. There is presently a significant amount of acreage zoned for single family residential use in the Scales Bend Road area (approximately 6 square miles of land). In addition, given approximately 154 platted, vacant lots are still available in this area, the maximum threshold for seal-coat roads will easily be reached and exceeded."

Jordahl said they need to quantify the current need for developing the road given the existing platted lots. He said that they would not be on firm ground by approaching the Corps saying that it is all their fault. It is a question more of timing than absolute need. Swartzendruber said a projected traffic volume and accident data are on the next page. Gardner said that if criterion e kicks into effect, they are already reducing the maximum threshold. Jordahl said they were very cautious when they were developing these standards, that the County would not have to improve a road at a given level, but the County would stop development if it is at that level. Stutsman said that later on, Swartzendruber makes the point that if this were a development coming in, the Board would not approve it. It was decided that the last 2 sentences should be reworked.

Swartzendruber continued reading:

"As is evident from the Road Performance Standards, development occurring in an area where the maximum ADT will be reached or exceeded, would result in either a reduction in the approved density for the proposed development, or denial of the development until the road was upgraded. This has the effect not of limiting all development, but does attempt to constrain the level of development density until the road can appropriately handle the volume of traffic that is a direct result of increased development pressure."

Jordahl said he would talk about development pressure as people coming into the room and asking for developments to be approved. Jordahl suggested some language: until the road can handle the volume of traffic as a direct result of, not of the pressure, but the actual development.

Swartzendruber continued reading (subsequent changes to the text he read are underlined):

"The Road Performance Standards are supported by the Five-Year Construction Plan for the County’s roads and development. It places responsibility squarely on the County to address road conditions in the areas where development has been approved or will continue to be permitted. Thousands of acres in the North Corridor (Scales Bend Road and 200th St. are located in the North Corridor) were zoned for residential use in 1960. The current Board of Supervisors have taken a proactive approach and acknowledged the County’s responsibility for providing roads that are up to identified standards. However, with limited resources and budget constraints, it is impossible for the County to upgrade immediately all of the roads that need it.

The idea of coordinating improvements and development (concurrency) comes into play in this decision-making process. Part of the idea of timing improvements is to establish criteria for individual roads in order to prioritize when and to what extent the road will be improved. Priority "points" are established for individual projects that are based on traffic counts, number of accidents, safety of the road, and type of service the road will provide (i.e. trunk, trunk collector, area service). Currently, the 2.2-mile section of chip-sealed surface on Scales Bend Road is being considered on a list of possible future projects for upgrade after 2005. This status could change based on the continued collection of new ADT and accident data."

Stutsman and Jordahl talked about Scales Bend Road being on the 5 Year Plan and then removed at the request of residents. The question raised was: is this project necessitating the upgrade of the road or does it need to be upgraded anyway. There was discussion about this road being put on the 5 Year Plan in the future, that it is on the list for future consideration. Stutsman said having this on the future projects list is no guarantee that it will be addressed. Jordahl said recognizing a degree of priority for this road counters the arguments that the County is already looking at doing this road, therefore the Corps shouldn’t have to pay. Jordahl said the best way to do this is to say exactly what they mean, in other words, answer their question before it is asked. Stutsman raised a concern that it would be taken that the Board is committed to working on this project in 2005, unless it is carefully clarified what is meant by future projects and that it no way commits the Board. There was more debate about the wording of the next to last sentence above and they agreed to come back to it.

Swartzendruber continued reading:

Specific analysis concerning existing traffic volumes and accident data have been performed by the County and the Iowa Department of Transportation. These data, along with the recently adopted Road Performance Standards, support the County’s position that Scales Bend Road is approaching traffic levels deemed to be unsuitable for a chip-sealed surface road. There are two segments of road on Scales Bend Road NE that have been counted by the IDOT during the Fall of 1998. The north segment of road has an ADT (average daily traffic) count of 720 VPD (vehicles per day). The south leg of Scales Bend Road NE has a ADT of 1510 VPD. Johnson County has performed a raw count in September of 1998. The details of both counts are illustrated in Table 1 below:"

Swartzendruber asked if they wanted him to include a projected count that would also be coming from the maximum number of visitors at the camp. He said that the difficulty is that they do not know how many are driving. Jordahl said there is another projected number referred to by the Road Performance Standards is the traffic volume projected from existing platted lots and available zoned lots and that is the number they need to look at for the current situation. Swartzendruber said that he would do another table showing build-out and Jordahl suggested adding it to the existing table as another column. Jordahl said they do not want to include any land with a vertical slope as possible platted lots. Gardner said the County’s count and the IDOT’s count taken south of 200th Street were taken at different locations on the road, which is why there is a difference between counts of 975 and 1510. Stutsman thought that should be included for clarification.

The following table was referred to in the discussion:

"Table 1

1998 IDOT Traffic Counts and Raw Counts

for Scales Bend Road NE

and 200th St. NE

	ADT Counts
	1998 IDOT VPD Count (Fall 1998)	September, 1999 Johnson County Raw Count
Scales Bend Road NE (North segment)	720	975
Scales Bend Road NE (South segment)	1,510	Not Counted
200th St. NE	40	Not Counted

Source: IDOT Average Daily Traffic Counts (Revised 10/99); Johnson County, Secondary

Roads Department."

Swartzendruber continued reading:

"As is evident from Table 1, the traffic count on Scales Bend Road NE is approaching the ceiling of 1000 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) as called for by the Road Performance Standards on chip-seal road surfaces."

Gardner said that if traffic is approaching the ceiling and section ‘e’ kicks in, it will be reduced by 50%, then they would already be over the limit. Jordahl said that if there are any zoned and platted lots out there, being at 975, they are not at ‘e’, but at ‘d’, "subdivisions shall not be approved." He said they should stress that because that is policy, period. He went on to give examples of how the above statement could be added onto to emphasize the point. Stutsman said the emphasis has to be made, because if this project were a Board decision for development, there would be no way that it could be approved.

Swartzendruber continued reading:

"The number of accidents that have occurred in this area during the past were also collected as part of the vehicle count the County conducted in September 1998. Specific accident data are detailed from 1987 until 1996 in Table 2 below. There does appear to be a trend of an increasing number of accidents that have occurred during the past ten years. The speed data also show that the average person traveling on Scales Bend Rd. NE tends to exceed the posted limit of 30 mph. Speed data gathered as part of the September study indicate an average speed of 42.26 mph on Scales Bend Rd. NE, with approximately 94.85 percent of the vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit. As mentioned previously, the 85^th percentile speed on this section of Scales Bend Road is approximately 46 mph."

He didn’t read the referenced table below:

"Table 2

Accident Data

for 2.2 Mile Section of Chip-Seal Surface

on Scales Bend Road NE

	1987-1989	1990-1993	1994-1996	Accidents per Mile
Number of Reported Accidents	2	9	12	10.45

Source: IDOT Accident Data."

Swartzendruber continued reading:

"While the accident occurrence at the intersection of 200^th St. and Scales Bend Road show no accidents from 1987 to 1996, it should be mentioned that an increase of 2 to 8 times the volume of traffic on 200th Street could contribute to an increased number of accidents. An analysis of the numbers of trips generated by the MYCA camp was conducted by JCCOG. The number of additional trips projected is shown in Table 3."

He didn’t read the referenced table below:

"Table 3

Projected Number of Trips (VPD)

From Proposed MYCA Camp

Onto 200th St. NE and Scales Bend Road NE

Summer Trips (Peak Season)		Off-Season Trips (per day)
Weekend Trips	Weekday Trips	Maximum	Minimum
240	40-50	340	120

Source: JCCOG, Doug Ripley (Traffic Engineering Planner) memo dated May 19, 1999 to County

Engineer detailing traffic generation estimate for MYCA Camp Horizon."

Swartzendruber continued reading (subsequent changes to the text he read are underlined):

"It should be noted that these projected traffic volumes already exceeds the Road Performance Standards for Scales Bend Road NE. of 1,000 VPD on chip-sealed surface roads. The additional trips onto 200th St. NE may exceed the guidelines of having 300 VPD on gravel roads."

Gardner remarked about the reference to the number of accidents that occurred in the area during the past also being part of vehicle counts, should be reworded to make it more accurate. Gardner also clarified that the speed figures were for the northbound traffic only. He also suggested averaging the speeds.

Swartzendruber continued reading:

Construction cost estimates for improving the intersection of Scales Bend Road and 200th St., along with cost estimates for upgrading both roads were calculated by the County Engineer during July of 1999. The cost of improving the intersection of 200th and Scales Bend Rd. could range from $100,000-$120,000 if right of way (ROW) acquisition costs are included.

To upgrade Scales Bend Road to an ACC (asphalt) or PCC (cement) paved surface road would entail a significant cost expenditure on the part of the County. In order to grade, pave, and acquire right of way for the 2.2 mile surface, it is conceivable that approximately $2.5 million could cover the project. This estimate is exclusive of certain soft costs including design and project management. This figure is based on cost estimates from recent similar projects with relatively similar right of way acquisition costs (West Overlook Road and Prairie du Chien Road). While the estimates provided are somewhat conservative, there is the possibility that the acquisition of R.O.W. could entail the purchase of some property along Scales Bend Road NE. In addition, subsequent re-location expenses could be included as part of the overall cost of upgrading the road."

Gardner clarified that the 2.5 million does not include right-of-way. Jordahl suggested rewording it to say it will undoubtedly include substantial right-of-way acquisition costs. Gardner and Assistant Engineer Al Miller talked about the most comparable project, West Overlook Road, and the difficulty keeping lanes of traffic open for access during construction, adding to construction costs. Stutsman commented that they should convey that the Board would not put that kind of money into a dead end road. She said that they had this discussion on James Avenue when they said, even if the numbers are there, is it good public policy for the Board to put in millions of dollars to upgrade a dead end road? Stutsman added that she doesn’t think that she could ever approve a project like that. She said they need to convey that even though they have the traffic count, it doesn’t mean that they will upgrade the road. There was discussion of adding language about the concerns Stutsman presented. Jordahl said that it comes down to priorities and a dead end road is a lower priority than a through road. Jordahl said that it is not like they will never put money into it, but they are not going to be rushed to put money into it, because it is not on the top of their priorities. Lehman asked if there should be a mention of County policy on embargo under chip seal roads. It was mentioned that buses would not be embargoed, but trucks over the weight limit would be restricted.

Swartzendruber continued reading (subsequent changes to the text he read are underlined):

The proposed shared well and wastewater systems need to be evaluated per DNR regulations. It is our understanding that there are substantial concerns in this area and that it may not be possible to site a wastewater system adequate to meet the needs that would be created by this development as proposed. A question that has not been addressed is what the projected needs will be for water and wastewater systems for the MYCA Camp Horizon. While the number of campers and attendees to the camp have been alluded to, it is certainly not clear what level of attendance will be given over to the site. As stated in the initial proposal dated March 15, 1999 by MYCA: "The Board of MYCA is committed to utilizing the site four seasons out of the year, actively marketing and inviting regional business, educational, and cultural communities to make use of the resources of the site." The bottom line is that it is difficult at best to tell what kind of demands will be placed on this area in terms of water and wastewater systems."

Jordahl said that statement was too vague. Both Jordahl and Stutsman agreed that this statement needed more punch because it is one of the main issues. Stutsman said that it is her understanding that there is no place to site wastewater treatment on the lot without getting permission from neighbors due to the required setbacks. There was general agreement on not quoting DNR regulations but saying that it is the County’s understanding that there are substantial concerns in this area and it may not be possible to site the wastewater facilities.

Swartzendruber continued reading:

"The 1998 Johnson County Land Use Plan also states under the Environmental General Development policies such as: "Protect drainage areas, creek beds, and other highly erosive lands." (pg. 14; 1.3 1998 Land Use Plan) The Plan also seeks to "Protect Johnson County water quality." (pg. 14; 1.4 1998 Land Use Plan) Other Land Use Strategies seek to "Continue to monitor ground water levels and quality in selected aquifers." (pg. 21; 1.4 Land Use 1998 Plan)"

Duffy said that he believed that they have 4 wells now. Stutsman asked Obermuller if he could add anything from a legal point of view. Obermuller said that he was taking notes for Pat White. Jordahl said that some of the stronger language in the environmental section might be included in the last paragraph under water and wastewater. He then read from page 13, 1.1, "Protect the environmental quality and natural resources of the county, such as woodlands and forested areas, by reducing forest fragmentation." Jordahl said that this section would bear multiple quotings because they should be strong on the environmental protection question because it is an environmental assessment.

Swartzendruber continued reading (subsequent changes to the text he read are underlined):

"Additional Environmental Impacts

The S.O.W. document submitted by MYCA under section 5.5.5 covers existing conditions and evaluates negative impacts on the natural resources of the area. These impacts can be detrimental to the trees, air, water, as well as historic and archaeological sensitive sites. There is also a question of whether any of this development occurs in or near the floodplain. With respect to floodplain development, the information given to the County was not clear as to whether some of the buildings were to be placed in the 713.0’ level. After the 1993 flood, the county has deemed that development should not occur at levels below 718.0’. In the original lease signed between the Corps and the Mississippi Valley Girl Scout Council, it was specified that there not be any structures for human habitation below 715.0’, and no permanent structures were to be erected below 712.0’.

Preservation of trees and vegetation are also referred to in the 1998 Johnson County Land Use Plan: "Protect the environmental quality and natural resources of the County such as woodlands and forested areas by reducing forest fragmentation and destruction of natural habitat for wildlife and plants."(1998 Land Use Plan, General Development Policies pg. 13-14; section 1.1). Past Corps practice with regard to tree removal and clearing has been to fine adjacent property owners who remove or trim trees on abutting Corps land. This has been the case since the Coralville Lake easement was obtained. The MYCA proposal seems to be in direct conflict with this past practice. The MYCA proposal states that the improvement of the site through permanent structures will "most often require some removal of trees and understory, especially in the case of the central lodge." "Some" tree removal is a difficult amount to ascertain, and becomes even less clear when taking into consideration the commensurate amount of grading and clearing that will be done."

Jordahl said that this should be raising more red flags as opposed to being polite. Jordahl said that the phrase "environmental devastation" would be appropriate to mention here. He suggested they make a clear statement of their policies. Duffy said that he did not like that paragraph because they still do not know how much authority they have over federal lands. Dvorak said that this is just a policy. Duffy felt that they were becoming too dictating in their wording. Stutsman said that they are looking at this as if it was a development that came before the Board of Supervisors, based on their policies that they have outlined in their Land Use Plan and their North Corridor Plan. She said that they would never allow this kind of destruction. Dvorak said that he has had personal experience with fines in this area. He was told that the Corps would go through and identify the quality good trees and they would not disturb them if they can help it; however, the other trees will be cut down. Dvorak said that his point is that if anyone in the area cuts anything down on Corps ground, they are fined $500 per tree. Jordahl said that that would be a more appropriate point, stating the fact of people being fined $500. Kristin Beatty, a neighbor, said that individuals get a threatening letter if they mow a path on Corps ground. She said that a person cannot cut down a dead tree even if it is going to fall on their land.

Swartzendruber continued reading (subsequent changes to the text he read are underlined):

"Similarly, the Land Use Plan seeks to guide and control development in sensitive areas which contain historic sites, wetlands, and steep slopes that may be damaged by such development. Development in sensitive areas is a serious issue for the County. Just recently, a Sensitive Areas Ordinance Citizen Advisory Committee has finished a draft of an ordinance (after almost two years of meetings) to present to the Board of Supervisors for consideration of adoption."

Swartzendruber asked if the reference to the proposed ordinance was something they wanted to include. Jordahl said the reason it is being done is to give teeth to the Land Use Plan and that somewhere there should be the notion that this is as required by the Land Use Plan.

Swartzendruber continued reading:

There is also the question of how emergency services will be delivered to a development of this size, in such a remote location as this. Sheriff, fire protection, first response and ambulance service comprise the necessary emergency protection services that will have to serve this area. With the continued growth in this area as a result of residential development, it puts additional burden on the existing services. There also seems to be some discrepancy as to whether the Sheriff’s department has authority to come onto this land. This issue needs to be discussed and concrete arrangements need to be in place to allow for access of these emergency services as well as detailing the amount and kinds of services that will be provided."

Swartzendruber said that he did not contact the Sheriff’s Department about whether or not they have a contract. Jordahl said that they have a contract limited to certain things and Sheriff Carpenter’s response was that they do not have a contract that covers the camp. Dvorak said the Sheriff is paid $40,000 per year to monitor Coralville Lake. Stutsman wondered if the contract would include the camp, because it is Corps land. Jordahl mentioned this would be a lease to a private concern and Dvorak added Jolly Roger Campground is covered by the contract. Lehman said the contract should be open to negotiation with changing circumstances.

Swartzendruber continued reading (subsequent changes to the text he read are underlined)

"Parking for the proposed MYCA camp will include 52 parking stalls. We are at loss to understand how this aggressive number of parking places could conceivably be sited on this property without extensive destruction of the existing forest. This number appears to conflict with the number of potential visitors that could attend the camp on a regular basis. There has been no mention in the MYCA proposal of having their own bus, or charter service to be able to transport the campers into town, and around to other areas in the county. The Planning and Zoning staff have contacted Tim Shanahan, the City Manager of North Liberty, and have confirmed that no representative of MYCA has contacted them regarding parking for a bus staging or transfer area. In addition, Mr. Shanahan has indicated that there is no such public space available in North Liberty for this purpose."

Jordahl suggested adding the 2nd sentence above and Obermuller when asked didn’t see any thing wrong with adding that. Obermuller added another thing that had not been addressed was the surface type of the parking spots, because hard surfacing would impact run-off. He added that 52 spots could develop into 85 or 90 spots if there was parking on the grass. Reverend Bob Welsh said he heard the camp planners say they plan to meet people at the airport and bus them in so that there will not be as many cars. Dvorak and Stutsman had heard that they were going to use North Liberty. Jordahl reiterated that they are at a loss to understand how this can be done without extensive destruction of the forest.

Swartzendruber continued reading (subsequent changes to the text he read are underlined):

"Another parking concern would be that a lack of parking on the site may force cars onto 200th Street NE, or even Scales Bend Road NE. This could pose a potential hardship for the residents of the adjacent Cumberland Ridge Subdivision with respect to access into and out of their subdivision. In addition, it could pose some severe restraints on emergency vehicle access to both the site and the adjacent subdivision."

Stutsman said that it is illegal to park on County roads and that they should mention that.

Recessed at 9:18 a.m.; reconvened at 9:25 a.m.

Jordahl suggested including a copy of MMS Consultants’ survey about the 400 trees that would be effected by the main lodge.

Swartzendruber continued reading (subsequent changes to the text he read are underlined):

"Socio-Economic Impacts

According to the Johnson County Zoning Ordinance, chapter 8:1.1 Purpose. "The purpose of Chapter 8.1 shall be to promote the public health, safety, comfort and general welfare, to conserve the values of property throughout the County, and to lessen or avoid congestion in public streets and highways, and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, and other public requirements."

Many variables enter the decision making process when purchasing property, especially for a personal residence. One of these is what uses are permitted for the property in question, as well as what uses are to be permitted in the surrounding area(s). Another variable in this decision making process would be the value of the land when purchased, and the expected future value. When purchasing a home, most buyers expect property values to appreciate. Incompatible uses next to or within the area can have a negative impact on property values, to say nothing of the esthetics. Property values could go down. These negative externalities can be influenced by various impacts such as relatively high noise levels, increased traffic congestion, and safety issues."

Stutsman suggested including the above mention of the esthetics of trees versus concrete and buildings and the impact that would have on property values.

Swartzendruber continued reading:

This proposed use does not fit the site and the surrounding land uses primarily because the entire adjacent area is zoned for residential use. (The pressure to develop new residential sites in this area continues, with new applications appearing on practically a monthly basis. It is extremely difficult for the county to make accurate predictions and assessments as to when to make infrastructure improvements given this type of development climate.) Add into the equation a camp which has the potential to add a significant amount of vehicular traffic and impacts to the surrounding uses, and you make the task that much more difficult. The Johnson County Land Use Plan speaks very clearly to development for the county as a whole and for the North Corridor. In making land use decisions, these general development policies with respect to environmental issues should be followed:"

Jordahl asked to add "It is likely that development pressure in the County will cause the existing platted and zoned sites to be developed;" as a 2nd sentence. Jordahl also asked to add the following to clarify the point in the 2nd sentence in parentheses above: "We have established a firm and clear policy on allowing development with full respect to the existing infrastructure." Stutsman said that this whole proposal flies in the face of everything the Board has worked hard to put in place. She also wanted to emphasize the local control issue because that is what they have worked hard to put in place for the community with community input. Swartzendruber asked if they would add something to the effect of: "We have established a clear and concise mechanism to limit development, i.e. road performance standards and the Land Use Plan." Jordahl pointed out these plans and policies are the County’s laws, that they, as an elected body, have established and will enforce. He said these are their strongest points. Stutsman said this could be stated in staff conclusions. Jordahl disagreed. He said that existing plans and policies is the Board establishing what policies the County will follow. He said that staff recommendations are followed by their policy conclusions. He said that they might want to put the policy section after the staff conclusions and recommendations. Stutsman said that she would like to emphasize that these policies and procedures were developed after a community process and this is what the community has established.

Swartzendruber referred to the general development policies with respect to environmental issues, which are bulleted in the document as follows:

"1.1 Protect the environmental quality and natural resources of the County such as woodlands and forested areas by reducing forest fragmentation and destruction of natural habitat for wildlife and plants.

1.2 Preserve significant features, such as prairie remnants, wetlands, steep slopes as defined by a Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and prime agricultural land. (Please see Johnson County Soils Map, Page 2M)

1.3Protect drainage areas, creek beds, and other highly erosive lands.

1.4Protect Johnson County water quality.

1.5Protect archaeological sites, artifacts, and themes such as burial mounds."

Swartzendruber referred the general development policies shown below and the North Corridor Development Policies are also shown:

"General development policies also seek to minimize land use conflicts. There are specific policies that are listed below in order to reduce conflicts between uses:

3.1Recognize existing zoning patterns and minimize disruptions to existing uses.

3.2Ensure adequate infrastructure and quality public services are available at a level appropriate to the land use.

3.3Evaluate rezoning proposals to ensure additional development does not occur at a density that requires urban services.

3.4Applications for rezoning which would make an additional demand on or require enhancement of rural County infrastructure should not be approved unless the developer agrees to bear the cost of improvement.

North Corridor Development Policies (Please refer to the 1996 Johnson County North Corridor Plan for the sub-area plan.) The policies adopted as part of this Land Use Plan are derived from County-wide goals and objectives as well as those developed as part of the planning process for the North Corridor area.

2.1Preserve the scenic rural and natural character of the North Corridor.

2.2Plan for and allow growth in areas with existing infrastructure that require minimal new or additional services.

2.3Encourage the use of clustering to preserve open space and sensitive areas.

2.4Encourage centralized wastewater disposal systems in compliance with County Health standards in large subdivisions

2.5Where feasible, encourage shared wells and limit the number of new wells drilled.

2.6Limit development in areas sensitive to soil erosion and encourage the use of soil conservation techniques.

2.7Infill development is preferred over rezoning and creating new subdivisions when a substantial number of vacant lots are still available."

Swartzendruber continued reading (subsequent changes to the text he read are underlined):

In conclusion, the County is concerned that if the proposed lease for Camp Horizon is permitted, the orderly, planned growth for this area will not have been taken into account. Further, consideration of the 1998 Land Use Plan and the 1996 North Corridor Plan will have been dismissed. If this lease application were a development proposal before the Board of Supervisors at this time, the chances for approval would be extremely unlikely, given the issues previously discussed. The question of the ability of the road to handle the vehicular traffic is a primary concern, as is the available parking planned by MYCA. There are also serious concerns dealing with the environmental impact a development of this scale will bring to the area.

A large question remains concerning this site selection as opposed to an alternative location, which could be located on another site of Corps-owned ground. It appears as if the Corps has given its stamp of approval on this project without evaluating the efficacy of alternative sites which may be more compatible with the applicable county plans and ordinances. One wonders if the suitability of the site was based merely on the fact that the past use of this land was another camp. This seems to underscore the question that any camp would be a suitable use for this area, given the road problems previously discussed and the other impacts to the surrounding land. The Board is not contending that no use of the land is appropriate, but would feel more comfortable with the use comparable suggested in option 3 of the Corps listed proposals. It must be remembered that the camp proposed by MYCA is very different from Camp Daybreak; Camp Daybreak was a relatively low intensive use day camp, with many fewer buildings and visitors. The proposed MYCA camp could be located in an area where the impacts to the surrounding land and residents are less intensive. It should be noted that County policy currently requires developers to bear the cost of infrastructure, as such if the Corps of Engineers were a private developer, they would be required to work with the County on resolving some of the aforementioned issues.

Given all of the concerns and issues discussed, staff would recommend that the MYCA proposal be rejected, and that the area be rezoned to low density recreation or reserve forest so it would no longer be available for lease."

Stutsman said that part of the 2nd paragraph goes into editorial comments versus facts. Jordahl said the letter from Zambrana speaks in editorial terms about their view of the low impact of the camp, before the assessment has been done. Jordahl said that they could do that, but it is not the strongest thing to do. He also suggested that the Board should write something, as opposed to the staff, so that the Board could take the blame. Obermuller said that they wanted to leave open the option that they could be right about their zoning applying to the Corps. Stutsman said that she was bothered by the suggestion that they just pay the costs of infrastructure, because she is concerned that they will put down $2.5 million and say that they have taken care of that. Jordahl said that this is a sub-point and it should be more global than it is. Jordahl suggested adding that there is other property available. Stutsman asked if any area out there could support this kind of proposed resort-like development. Dvorak said that they tried to say, look for another site; the County will work with you. Jordahl said that is a nice way to end this, by saying that the staff would be willing to work with MYCA and the Corps to locate an acceptable site.

Obermuller said that the County needs to take a position on which of the 4 Corps’ proposed plans is best suited for that site. Swartzendruber said that right in the beginning of the memo, they list the 4. Swartzendruber said that the staff recommendation would be for number 2, to rezone the area to low density rec. or reserve, so it will no longer be available for lease. Jordahl mentioned that it is not currently zoned. He suggested that the language in that section should be classified as low density. Swartzendruber said that it is a zone from the Corps’ perspective. Dvorak suggested they strike the part of the sentence pertaining to rezoning. In regards to the last sentence, Jordahl suggested that it could mention how the Girl Scout Camp was a minimum impact. Dvorak said it would be low or no impact and also suggested that should go into the conclusion instead of the opening. Stutsman and Jordahl agreed that it should go in both the opening and the conclusion. Linn Kinney said that it was her understanding from the Corps that in their master plan, they have it zoned as higher recreational use than other uses; it is zoned by the Corps as a camp, that is why it is different and why this particular site was chosen. Swartzendruber clarified that when the Corps say rezone, they mean changing their classification of zoning. Dvorak then suggested leaving that reference in there. Stutsman agreed.

Obermuller mentioned that he did not think they should say that the Corps cannot do anything with that land, because if the Board does decide to vacate the road, then their position is saying that the land is worthless except as it is currently used. Jordahl suggested text to add to the above conclusions. Obermuller asked if under socio-economic impacts, there were any evaluations done on the positive impacts this type of a structure would have on North Liberty businesses. Stutsman said that there may or may not. Dvorak said that they chose to stay away from that, because he said that is for them to prove. Jordahl did say that a speculative thing like that would be good to put in a conclusion. He went on to say that the Board is not saying that no such development would be appropriate in Johnson County but that it is not appropriate on this particular site. Dvorak said that is what they had written down. Stutsman said that they have not deemed economic development in that area, so it is incompatible. Dvorak said that he would try and make these changes and that Recording Secretary Casie Parkins told him she would try to make a draft of minutes by Friday for him. He said that he would try to get something back to the Board as a final draft of the reply before he sends it off. Stutsman asked if that would be Monday morning. Dvorak said that they would try for Friday, but worst case scenario would be on Monday morning.

Stutsman then opened it up for overall comments. Kinney then said that she thought that Camp Horizon is now called Camp Heritage. She also mentioned that the use of the word camp throughout the document should be changed because she feels it is more of a facility. There was general agreement with facility being an appropriate reference. Kinney also thought that at the last meeting she heard someone say, that if this was a private developer, this development would receive no serious consideration, but she did not get that from this particular document. Dvorak said that he was not sure about jurisdictional zoning and they would hold off on the zoning issue.

Reverend Bob Welsh asked if they were going to put it in the form of a staff recommendation to the Corps. Dvorak said that this is not going to the Corps, it is going to Zimbrana. Jordahl clarified that this is a response from the County, essentially the Board. Welsh suggested that it should be the County Board of Supervisors’ recommendation. Jordahl said that in the context of this being a report from the Zoning Department, it is appropriate that it says staff, and in the context of the Board responding to Zimbrana, it is appropriate that it says the Board. Dvorak asked if they wanted a separate letter. Stutsman suggested a cover letter incorporated into it, given all of the issues discussed, that says the Board of Supervisors and the staff recommends it. Dvorak asked if Stutsman wanted to sign it. Lehman suggested Stutsman sign it as Chair. He then asked if they could do it without formal action. Administrative Assistant Carol Peters said she would check if they could do it administratively.

Welsh said that in regards to adding more punch, the staff might want to consider looking at some of the substance and changing some of the technical terms. He suggested Jordahl add some suggested changes to the draft. Jordahl said that he would work with the staff on editing. Obermuller said that their role should be a contributing agency as opposed to a position paper. He said that he is not certain that they want to come across as so adversarial. Obermuller said that their role is to evaluate the things that they have and give it to Zimbrana, so that they can do the environmental assessment. Dvorak said that is what they had difficulty in finding, if it was a policy statement saying that the County is against it, or is it a response to their request. He said that they tried to include a little bit of both without being totally adversarial. His opinion was that if they respond and the staff and Board are not satisfied with the response, then they come back with a policy. Jordahl pointed out that Zimbrana’s invitation to the County is laden with tone. Lehman said, rather than make a final judgement, that they are asking for concerns. Stutsman said that she would like to keep it more factual at this point and leave some of the emotion out of it. Dvorak said they will respond to the assessment. Jordahl said he does not want to leave emotion out of it. He said wants to work with the document and punch it up in places. He said the Board needs to be firm and clear as to what the policy is. He said that their policies address these environmental concerns and the policies came to exist because of their concerns. He said that there is no divide between the policy and the concerns. He said that if the policy is firm and clear, but the statement is vague, then they are not being forthcoming. Stutsman said that she did not want to cross over into an adversarial role. Jordahl said that he would be careful not to do that. Stutsman concluded that they would be firm, yet factual.

Under Other Business, Stutsman asked Lehman to report about the need to respond to Iowa City’s TIF proposal for Sycamore Mall, which would need to be done by the 31st. Because there is no deadline on proposal to vacate 200th Street, it was decided that discussion would be deferred. Lehman reported Jerry Palmer from the Iowa City Schools, Karen Franklin, and concerned residents attended the meeting regarding the proposed Sycamore Mall TIF. He said the County would still receive taxes from the current appraised value and it would be the increase in the taxable value that would be forgone. Lehman said that if they put $15 million worth of reconstruction into it, that wouldn’t necessarily be the appraised value. He said that currently the County receives about $5,000 per $1million of valuation. He said, over 7 years, the County is looking at a $35,000 loss in tax revenue. Lehman said it was made very clear that the County would not lose the portion required for a debt service levy. Lehman said there had to be 15% increase over the minimum to even consider giving a tax abatement. He said Iowa City’s jurisdiction would include appearance and performance. Lehman mentioned the legal steps the City would have to go through, such as the City Council approval of the district, setting a public hearing, and adopting a plan; so it is not a done deal. He said that it would not effect them until after the January 2000 tax valuation is used, meaning it would be quite a while before they see any impact. He said that good news was that the current taxation value would still be in place. It was noted questions could not be taken at this time and discussion of Lehman’s report would need be held at a later meeting as placed on an agenda. The Board decided to have a meeting at 10:00 a.m. Monday morning to review the final draft of the MYCA proposal and include the TIF for the Sycamore Mall.

Adjourned at 10:10 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary