Staff Report

To: Johnson County Board of Supervisors

FROM: Johnson County Planning & Zoning Office

Carmen Carruthers, Intern. Presented by Dan Swartzendruber.

RE: Application MZ01003A and B of John and Jennifer Smith requesting 99.02 acres in section 13 of Newport Township are rezoned from A1 to RS. The applicant is proposing to downzone 126.36 acres (Section 8 of Newport Twp.) from RS, suburban residential to A1, on the condition that the 99.02 acre parcel is rezoned.

Applicants are requesting a rezoning of approximately 99.02 acres from A1 Rural to RS Suburban Residential. This property is located in Newport Township, along Newport Road and Sugar Bottom Road, approximately 1.5 miles from its intersection with Highway 1. The parcel to be downzoned is located on the East Side of North Liberty Road, approximately 3/4 mile east of North Liberty corporate limits. The applicant is willing to downzone 126.36 acres in Section 8 of Newport Township from RS to A1 in exchange for the ability to rezone this 99.02 acres in Section 13 to RS. The applicant proposes a clustered, 40-lot subdivision with shared well and wastewater systems on the 99.02-acre parcel. (It is anticipated that the subdivision will be developed in phases.) If downzoned, the applicant proposes that the 126.36-acre parcel will be developed as a horse stable and riding academy (which is only allowable in an A1 zoning area).

Staff Conclusion:

This is basically a transfer of development rights scenario, for which the County has not adopted a formal policy. Although the County has not adopted a formal purchase of development rights (PDR) or transfer of development rights (TDR) policy, such a policy has been discussed. This proposed development would be consistent with the purpose to allow development in one area for the removal of development potential in another area.

The 99.02-acre parcel requested to be rezoned to RS in Section 13 generally appears to be consistent with the Land Use Plan and the North Corridor Plan. It would be located on a soon to be upgraded road, relatively low CSR, and is consistent with the surrounding residential characteristics of the area. The infill issue should be considered when rezoning in the North Corridor.

The 126.36 acre parcel that is proposed to be downzoned in the event that the 99.02 acre parcel is approved is located on a gravel road with a relatively high vpd count; the existing land use for this parcel is agriculture. This parcel would provide a buffer between nearby residential and agricultural land uses, as well as protecting land adjacent to the Coralville Reservoir. The North Liberty Fringe Area agreement identifies this area where agricultural uses in a rural setting are preferred. However, North Liberty is growing eastward towards this area and could potentially annex in the future. A question remains whether this area is best left zoned as RS considering future growth and possible annexation.

John Smith (played by Persky), the applicant, spoke on behalf of the application. He said that he realized that it was a slightly unusual situation, asking the group to approve 2 applications at the same time, one for up-zoning and one for down-zoning. Smith said that he believed that the group would see the benefits to the County for both applications. He said that the up-zoning was in an area where there was residential, and said that the 40-lot, clustered subdivision was not unusually large. He noted that there would be shared wells and a central wastewater facility, and said the development would be phased in gradually. He said that the land was not good farmland, and not suitable for industrial or manufacturing, so the best use of the land was as a residential development, as he was proposing. Smith said that at the same time, they would be willing to down-zone 126 acres that they own further west. He said that the land in North Liberty was not really productive for very many purposes, especially not agricultural. It has a very low CSR rating, and is hilly and woody. Smith said that it would be a good site for some trails for a riding academy, and said that this was the best use they could think of for the land.

Kurt Kaleburg (played by Dvorak) said that he lived in a nearby subdivision, and said that he and his family have been going over into the area for years and years, and said that it was dense timber with much wildlife. Kaleburg said that it would make more sense to re-zone the area and not make improvements on North Liberty Road, as this road will soon be annexed to the City of North Liberty. Kaleburg said that he highly supports the application. Ralph Gustafson (played by Moore) said that he lived on Newport Road and voiced objection to the up-zoning of the land there. He said that he had no problems with the down-zoning application. Gustafson said that the in-fill issue was an important issue, and said that before they rezone any more ground in the North Corridor, they should fill all vacant lots and plat and use that ground that’s already zoned. Gustafson said that because of the already high traffic counts, and the fact that Sugar Bottom Road was only on the future projects list, he objected to the up-zoning. Thompson asked Gustafson if he was opposed to re-paving Newport Road. He said no, that he’d like to see a good road there.

Carr asked Smith what his purpose was in making this application, and wondered if it was to develop a riding academy and fund the academy by selling lots? Or, he asked, was the purpose only to sell lots, or only to have a riding academy? He asked the applicant to assume that they were not going to give him 2 things at once, and asked which one he wanted? Smith said that by giving he and his wife both applications, the County would be getting the most productivity possible out of both lots. Carr said that Smith himself would be getting the productivity, not the County. Smith said that he thought the benefit was to the County. He said the new residential development would bring in tax revenue without conflicting with the already existent trend in the area, and said the riding academy would serve a purpose for the residents of that area without being a disruption or harming the land. Carr asked Smith if he had owned the 126-acre parcel at the time it was zoned RS. Smith replied yes, he had, and said the land had been in the family. Stutsman asked if this was within the 2-mile fringe of North Liberty, and the group confirmed that it was. Swartzendruber clarified that it was just outside North Liberty’s growth area. Kaleburg spoke in favor of the application, and said that right now he had his horses at another location by Ely, and said that the riding academy would help him out a lot. He said that the size of the facility that Smith was looking at would only pick up 10 of the 120 acres. He supported the application. Saunders asked Smith if he was planning to put exits onto both Sugar Bottom Road and Newport Road, and he said no, only onto Newport. It was pointed out to Smith that Newport Road was scheduled to be upgraded soon. Smith said that he didn’t think the construction on his development would begin until after the Newport Road project was finished.

Saunders said that the group should discuss the idea of in fill, a topic which he said would come up nearly every time they saw someone from the North Corridor. He said that the frequent argument was that there were already 10,000 acres already zoned. He said that might be true, but said the question was of the zoned land, how much was available? He said that somebody could be sitting on hundreds of acres of RS-zoned land which they did not intend to sell. He said that the issue was not how much zoned land existed, but how much available land existed? He said that this was one of the quandries that the Planning and Zoning Commission was going to be facing. Thompson said that people always want to develop land that they own, not in-fill land. Stutsman said that the issue was that the land was zoned, and could be developed at any time. Saunders repeated his point that although it could be developed at any time, much of the ground had been zoned RS for years, and there wasn’t a house on it yet. There was a lot of ground zoned RS, but no one could get their hands on it. Lackender said that he agreed with Saunders on this point, and noted that they needed to look at the piece of land that was before the group right now, and ask whether or not it should be developed.

Stutsman said that she did not see the issue that way at all, and said that any land that is rezoned has the potential to have houses on it, maybe not today, but more than likely tomorrow or the next day. She said that if there was already a lot of land that is ready to be developed, then why add to that? Saunders said that the key phrase was "ready to be developed," and said that the land to which Stutsman was referring is not ready to be developed, and Smith’s is. Saunders asked if they should say to any applicant who came to the group that they should get a plat book, find the RS ground, and go talk the owners into selling it to them? He made the point that almost no major subdivisions actually ever fill totally up. Stutsman asked why they wanted to add even more lots if those were not filled? Saunders said that this was the issue that the group was going to have to face. He said that the last couple of lots left in a subdivision are the least desirable. Carr added that those last few lots may have been sold, and said that the fact that a subdivision isn’t fully developed doesn’t mean it hasn’t sold out. He said that builders or developers may have bought the lots and simply mow them for some point farther down the line when they need them. Carr said that it was a balancing act. He said the group should not even consider taking the 126-acre parcel out of RS, as the hilly, wooded terrain was perfect land for a development site, despite what Smith said. He said that he would never allow that, but said he would certainly consider putting the 99 acres into RS. Smith said that if they really wanted, he’d keep all of it residential and make a fortune off of it. Saunders said that he could not do that, right now, because the 126-acre parcel abutted a road that was at capacity; even though it was zoned RS, he can’t build a house there. Saunders said that if they rezoned the parcel to ag, they create a problem, because with an ag zoning, Smith could automatically put the riding stable out there, without permission from the County. This would create a major road problem in the area, because of the traffic generated from the riding stable. Carr said that these problems were going to keep coming up, as in the past they had taken a lot of flat farmland and turned them into homesites. Now, he said, what was left was the hilly, less productive land that was less accessible. Carr said that this was the battle they were going to fight every single meeting.

Saunders said that he had just bought a small cottage on a bluff that overlooked the Mississippi River, and four lots next to it. He said that all 5 lots were zoned RS, but said he had no intention of ever building more houses on them. The Planning and Zoning Commission might see his 4 lots as buildable property, but Saunders noted that none of them were for sale. Stutsman said that was true today, but said that if he lost his job tomorrow, every single one of the lots would be for sale. Saunders asked if they were suggesting that there was no more rezoning that was going to occur simply because there were 8,000 lots available, and people should go talk somebody into selling them one? Stutsman said that she didn’t think that her position was to be sure that everybody could build a house wherever they wanted to. Saunders said that the current application was another example, 126 acres of RS ground that he couldn’t build a house on because of the availability of roads. He said that there was RS ground that could not be built on right now. Thompson said that she would agree that not all of the 7,000 acres of RS zoned land was available, but pointed out that there were always a number of lots for sale in the North Corridor, as well as a lot of houses for sale in the North Corridor. Thompson said that if someone wanted to live out there, they could be accommodated. She said that the problem was that Smith had his piece of land that he wants to develop that is not zoned right. Lackender asked if they were losing sight of the best use of the land? He said this was the most important thing to him. Stutsman said that there was more than that, and said that she had to think about what she was going to put County resources into, for roads, ambulance service, sheriff, and infrastructure. She said that she thought that she had the ability to manage disasters out in the rural areas, to deal with the potential traffic and lack of service problems. Lehman said that the discussion also got to the point of a designated growth area closer in, which would drive the price up. He said that a type of overlay zoning would drive the price up and farmers would have a hard time saying no to developers, while people further out would know that they were not allowed to develop the land. Lehman said that this would force developers to move in and farm the closer in stuff.

Lehman asked with residential and ag zonings side-by-side, how did fence agreements come into play? Moore answered that if a subdivision was allowed to develop, the subdivider is responsible for presenting a fence agreement. He said that they can create one with adjoining agricultural users, and if the ag user wants to share the fence, they can do that in writing. He said that if the ag user refuses to do that, then the subdivider is responsible for all fences abutting ag ground to meet state code and county ordinances with livestock or hog fences. Carr said that in fairness to the argument between ag and RS zoning, he wanted to point out that Saunders votes against many of the types of proposals that the Board was discussing today. Carr said that he thought Saunders’s concern was they can’t look at a single proposal and judge the merits of that proposal on the basis of the 7,000 already-zoned acres for residential purposes. Carr said that he thought they had to look at each proposal on its merits, look at the Land Use Plan, and the Road Performance Standards. He said that he is grateful that those things are there, because without them they’d have 5 people with 5 different agendas.

Bollinger said that she was going to vote no for the applications. She said that she was not willing to take some land in one area and trade it for land in another area. She said that she would prefer that the applicant come forward with 2 separate applications for the group, so they could look at them independently. Lackender said that he was going to vote for approval of the 99 acres. He said that it was important there would be a good road in the future that the applicant could tie into, as well as a centralized wastewater and sewer. He also stated he felt it was the best use of the land. Carr said he voted no against the proposal, only because they’re tied together. He said he would support the 99 acre rezoning, but said he definitely would not want to take 126 acres that close to North Liberty that they would want to have for development in a short period of time. Saunders voted no, and said the downzone parcel gave him problems. He said the paradox was that it was zoned residential, but no houses could be built on it. He said this was probably a good thing, because the road couldn’t handle it. Saunders noted that if they turned it back into ag, then he could put the riding academy on it, which would produce traffic problems. He said he would also vote no on the 99 acres rezoning, only because if there are 52 lots in the surrounding sections of that part of the community, he thought a number of those would be for sale.

Harney voted no for both, because they were tied together. He said there is some concern about North Liberty, as they might want to annex this land in the future. He said that he would vote not to rezone the 99 acres at this time, wait until Newport Road and Sugar Bottom Road are upgraded. Thompson voted to deny for the reasons that had already been stated. She also noted that they had had some talk about having a policy where people could exchange zoned land for not-zoned land, but they did not currently have a policy and did not know what the ramifications of that would be. She said she didn’t like the joint proposal. Lehman said he would vote no on the joint application. He said that the downzoning wasn’t a factor, because it would probably be annexed into North Liberty in the near future. He said that if he was presented with just the 99 acres upzoning, he said he would also say no, and said he didn’t think that that large area should be developed that far out at this time. Neuzil said he would approve both of the situations. He said that he thought the infrastructure is in place or soon will be, according to the future road plans. Also, Neuzil said that it seemed like the downzoning was a positive thing. Stutsman voted to deny the application. She said that she liked the idea of the trade-off, and said she hoped that there would be a policy developed in that area. She said that this idea was being used in other areas, and it was successful to have transfer development rights. She said that the applicant had said this was a win-win for the County, and she said it was a win-win for the applicant. Stutsman said that this would eventually be annexed into North Liberty, so the project would be very profitable for him, which is OK. But, she continued, she said that she could not go along with the development in the North Corridor area, and said the in-fill was a big issue for her. Adding 40 more lots was too much for the current infrastructure that was in place.

Moore gave the staff summary on this application. He said that 4 staff members had looked at this, and they couldn’t quite come up with a consensus on it, but basically, it was to deny both. He said that the concept of using TDRs was a good one, but noted that when this is done, a receiving area and a sending area need to be identified. Moore explained that a sending area is an area you want to protect, while the receiving area is an area you know you’ll be able to service. Moore said that the negatives for the up-zoning were the in-fill issue. He said that the negatives for the down-zoning were that even though it was not identified in the Fringe Area Agreement as a growth area, as many of the group had noted, this land would probably eventually be annexed. Moore said that they always liked down-zoning the 120 acres to A-1, and that this was a positive. He noted that trade-off was that they were going from a gravel road to one scheduled for improvement, which on the surface was a positive, as Neuzil had noted. Moore said that the issue was, again, the infill. Finally, Moore said that the applicant’s intent was to use a Transfer of Development Rights, and they did not have that in place yet, as a number of the group had noted, and until there was a policy in place, they should not deal with this issue.

Application MZ01004 was presented by Matsen.

Application MZ01004 of Golf Carts 4U, of Des Moines, IA requesting rezoning of approximately 90 acres from A1 Rural, to RS-Suburban Residential, RMH-Manufactured Housing District, and M2-Heavy Industrial. This parcel is described as being in the SW 1/4 of sec. 9; township 80; Range 5 West. It is located on the south side of Morse Rd. NE, approximately 200 feet east of its intersection with Putnam Rd. NE in Graham Township.

PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING:

Site Agricultural, A1

North Agricultural, A1

South Agricultural, A1

East Agricultural, A1

West Residential, Industrial, R1A, M2

SPECIAL INFORMATION:

Area Requirements

2. School District Solon

3. Fire Protection furnished by Solon

4. Law Enforcement furnished by Johnson County Sheriff

5. LESA Total 120

6. CSR 65.7

There are approximately 8 different soil types on this parcel with varying slopes ranging from 0 to 18%. The four Fayette’s, and the one Lindley comprising approx. 32 acres have slopes that range from 14 – 18%. There are four soils that have a depth to water of 1 – 4 feet, all the rest are 6 feet or greater. The Colo Overwash and Ackmore soils comprising 18.5 acres indicate a flooding frequency, and the Colo-ely Complex of approximately 9 acres occasionally floods. Two of the soils, Fayette’s 163D3, and 163E3 have severe limitations for development; they total approximately 11.5 acres. The soils analysis also shows there is a creek or drainage area that goes through the north half of the property from NE to SE that is within a hundred-year flood plain. Care should be taken when locating structures in the Colo and Ackmore soils to ensure their compliance with applicable ordinances.

The purpose of this request is to rezone 30 acres to M1 Heavy Industrial for a Golf Cart assembly facility, 25 acres to CP2, Planned Commercial District for siting mixed commercial uses that would support existing and future uses, 15 acres to RMH Manufacturing Housing District for approximately 50 residential unit sites, and 20 acres to RS Suburban Residential for approximately 25 to 30 single family residential units.

The manufacturing facility is entirely assembly; all components are produced at other facilities and shipped to this facility.

The proposal is to serve the entire development with a shared wastewater system, and community well, which will be constructed to have the capacity or ability to expand the capacity to allow for additional users. Once informed of the identified drainage area, the applicant has said they would create a stream corridor protection outlot along both sides of the creek/drainage area.

County Engineer’s report: All proposed accesses are onto paved roads. The applicant will need to obtain a permit from the Secondary Roads Dept. prior to performing any work in the right-of-way.

Health Dept. report: The applicant proposes community wells and wastewater systems, both are under the jurisdiction of the Dept. of Natural Resources, and therefore subject to their permitting process.

1998 Johnson County Land Use Plan

According to the Land Use Plan, development is permitted in the villages, where mixed uses are encouraged, and the development is served by a shared well, and community wastewater system.

3. UNINCORPORATED VILLAGES

3.1 Allow infill where new development can meet Health Department standards.

3.2 Encourage centralized water distribution and wastewater treatment.

3.3 Allow mixed uses in unincorporated villages provided the uses are in harmony with the area and adequate infrastructure is in place.

The LUP also speaks to economic development.

6. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

6.1 Provide land uses that support economic development in Johnson County.

6.2 Encourage commercial and industrial development where disturbance to productive agricultural land and natural land features is minimal.

6.3 Encourage commercial uses and industry to locate where services are available to handle environmental, wastewater, and transportation concerns.

6.4 Discourage heavy industrial development where services are not available to treat environmental and wastewater concerns.

6.5 Work with state, regional and local organizations to promote economic development.

The 1998 Land Use Plan identifies two areas as possible growth areas, the North Corridor, and the Villages.

Conclusion

It would appear that this request is in compliance with the 1998 Johnson County Land Use Plan.

Applicant Roger Eagle (played by Moore), the owner of Golf Carts 4U, spoke in favor of the application. Eagle said that golf was one of the fastest-growing recreational uses in the country, and said that the company was unable to meet the production needs of the facilities they currently had in Des Moines. He said that they have a sales in this area and the Quad Cities, and said they would like to site a facility here to assemble the golf carts. Eagle said that the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids area had some problems providing low income and affordable housing for low-income families, and proposed that their development would consist of 30 acres for the manufacturing facility, 50 manufactured homes in the north, then 25-30 single-family residential lots in the south, all less than an acre, approximately 20,000 square feet served by a shared well and wastewater facility. The CP2 zoning, Eagle said, was to serve the proposed and current users in the area, and said that Morse was a traditional small village that wasn’t incorporated any more, but there were numerous single-family residential users there. Eagle said that they would site a convenience gas station to service gasoline needs, and some type of store, as well as space for services that serve residential users as well, like a doctor’s office or dentist’s office, as the community grows. Eagle pointed out that the road would come all the way through, down through from the north down to the southwest, with lots created around the cul-de-sacs coming off the main road. Eagle estimated that they would create 50 jobs at the facility, including production staff, management, sales, and maintenance staff, with an average hourly income of about $25 per hour.

Rick Suckle (Dvorak) said that this idea was stupid. He said that he owned a house in town and owned a lot of farmland near the site. Suckle said that if they put in that many houses, commercial businesses, and industrial park to the flood plain, it would ruin his farming. He said that he would never be able to farm the area again. Suckle said that he had lived in the area since the old grocery store and post office had been down there. Suckle said that Morse, Iowa was a small community, and they hadn’t had any more lots since 1846, when the plat was drawn. He said that it was a bedroom community, and that they liked it down there, and said he was speaking for all the residents. Suckle said he had a petition with every resident’s signature on it, the whole community. He said it made no sense to him, and said if he wanted to live in Iowa City, he’d build a house in Iowa City. He ended by telling the group that they’d be hearing from his attorney.

John Simmons (Swartzendruber), from the Johnson County Coalition for Affordable Housing, spoke in favor of the application. He said that the application gave 20% of the single family units to be affordable for 60% median income level. Simmons said that this was a boon for them, in this area, where it was difficult for someone earning that kind of money to get into that type of a house. Also, Simmons said, the potential for someone perhaps seeking employment at this facility could live on site, which would be beneficial. He said that he supported the application wholeheartedly. Stutsman asked if affordable housing meant people below the poverty level, and Simmons said it would be 60% of median income.

White asked for a clarification, and pointed out that the caption referred to M-2 Heavy Industrial while the report referred to M-1 Heavy Industrial. Eagle said that he had revised this, that it was a mistake, and that it should be M-1, assembly only, light industrial, no noxious by-products. Stutsman asked what else was allowed under M-1, and the group said that, with some exceptions like acid manufacturers, cement, explosives, fat rendering, anything was allowed except residential and heavy industrial. Thompson asked if they had a recycling facility, and Eagle said no, they didn’t. Harney asked how much of the area is in the flood plain area, and Eagle said that staff had identified this problem for him, and he had agreed to put that into a stream corridor protection area, as an out-lot, and not build anything in there except take the road across it. Eagle said he could still get his CP2 above it, and the RMH to the north, and then the residential and M-1 zoning would be south.

Lackender asked if he was required to install a retention pond below this, and Eagle said they may have to do that, but had not gotten that engineering study done yet. Saunders asked what the sense was of doing this in Morse as opposed to one of the commercial parks in North Liberty, Iowa City, or Coralville. Eagle said that one of the interests was cheaper land; he said that the others were established communities with higher land prices, and said that they needed to keep their product as affordable as possible. Eagle also said that the siting of the residential area with affordable housing for low income families was also a reason, and said that the houses would be built on small lots with a small footprint. Thompson asked how many houses there currently were in Morse, and Suckle answered 32. Thompson noted that Eagle was proposing to add 80. Lackender noted that Eagle was also getting away from infrastructure, such as public transportation and storage. Eagle said yes, but they were only 6 miles from Iowa City. Eagle also said that they wanted to do the CP2 for this reason, to site as many services there as possible, to serve the population and to reduce trips. Thompson asked Eagle if she had heard him say that the people were going to make $50,000 a year, for assembly workers? He said that the average was for everybody: for managers, production, staff, sales. Thompson asked if they had one manager who made $100,000 and a whole bunch of workers who made $10,000-$15,000. Eagle said he wasn’t sure, and that the person who did the estimates was not present. He thought that the production staff, including benefits, had an average wage of approximately $18 per hour.

Stutsman asked Eagle if he had talked to the school district at all about the potential for adding students? He said no. Lehman asked if this was for contract zoning, and Stutsman said they didn’t have contract zoning. Eagle said that he would build per the standards, policies, ordinances, and Land Use Plan, with the shared well and wastewater system, the roads. Lehman asked staff if they concurred with that, if everything that would be in place to meet the criteria, or was there something out of the Land Use Plan? Matsen replied that Eagle had agreed to build the road to meet the standards that the density he was proposing would create. Harney said that the land there was low land, and not compatible for septic systems. He asked Eagle what kind of a water waste treatment he was projecting to put in there. Eagle replied that they probably would use a large Wisconsin Mound System. He said that these seemed to be more compatible with surrounding users, rather than the open lagoons, or systems with an effluent pipe. Stutsman asked if he was planning a daycare center, and Eagle replied that they weren’t quite sure about that, but said that if there was a need for it, the central building of the manufactured home development could be used for this. Stutsman said that there was a potential for 160 kids at the development, with 2 kids per household. She asked Eagle where they were going to play? Eagle said that the latest census data was 3.2 people per household, which would give each household only 1.2 children. He said that there were areas available, and said that the number of homes proposed for each area was not a full build-out, but the maximum they wanted to allow on both properties for the residential users. He said that there was open space during platting and the site plan for the manufactured home district that would be available.

Lehman noted that all the proposed access was onto paved roads. He asked Eagle if any studies had been done at the access of Morse Road onto Highway 1? He said that this was already somewhat of a problem now, and the development could make this problem worse with the truck traffic and additional residential traffic. Staff replied that they did not have any studies from Secondary Roads on this issue. Eagle said that IDOT had been informed but they had not heard from them. He said that they would be willing to work with them on this issue. Carr asked Eagle if the principal focus was to build a golf cart manufacturing facility, and he said yes. Carr asked if he was going to be intimately involved in building the homes, developing the mobile home district, the CP2 zoning? Eagle replied yes. Carr said that it seemed as if there was an awful lot on the table all at once, and questioned whether the manufacturing facility could stand alone? Eagle replied that it could, but explained that as they looked at the area as a whole, they identified that these other uses could be maximized and utilized, and were needed as well. Eagle said that the primary concern was the manufacturing facility, as that was their primary business. He said that the rest of the plan was a carrot they were offering to the county, as they knew that Johnson County and the Iowa City area needed low/moderate-income housing. Suckle noted that Eagle had not talked about the folks in Morse at all, and had not addressed his farming capability when all the houses were built. He said that the additional water from rooftops and streets would make the creek flood even more; it already flooded every spring. Suckle said that he remembered reading in the paper that the group had denied an application for a person who wanted to create a town called Edleon, and said he saw no difference between that case and this one. He said that the proposed community is bigger in population than that of the community that is there now.

Bollinger voted no. She said that she would like to see the applicant break this down into smaller components, perhaps present the manufacturing facility apart from the various housing issues. She said that an engineering study needs to be done, and said that she’d also like to see more studies on the roads and the impact it’s going to have on the community, as well as getting some further input from the residents of that area. Lackender said that he too would vote for denial. He said he had no problem with the M-1 and the CP2, but said that the proposal to add this many people in one area, the applicant needed a lot more research into infrastructure, schools, housing, and public services. Carr voted no, and said that he agreed with Lackender’s comment. He said he would not be opposed to the M-1 zone or the CP2, which would serve the existing community. Carr said he was concerned about the neighbor’s water problems, and said those would have to be addressed before they would add that much concrete. Carr said that he wasn’t certain that the application would meet a demand that existed in housing, or if he was creating a demand to satisfy his needs to develop the land. Carr said that after he had created the jobs, and there was still a need for the housing, then perhaps that would be a better time to address the issue. Saunders said that this would be 3 times bigger than the present village. He said his concern was that they were going to make a new city. He said that he had a problem with the application as a whole, and said the only part that made any sense to him was 15 acres of manufactured housing in a village, not a couple of walls and a factory.

Harney said that he could support the building in the small communities, and said it would be an asset to those communities. However, he continued, he didn’t think that the commercial filling in there, which would allow just about anything to come in, should be allowed. He said they should be a little more restrictive in that area. Harney said that they also needed to look out for the farmer so the runoff would not be running onto his property. Thompson also voted against it. She said that even if this could slide from a business standpoint, which she doubted, she said that Morse could not accommodate a tripling in the number of houses in their community. She said that the Housing Task Force had had a lot of discussion about affordable housing, and said they had decided against encouraging affordable housing in rural areas because of the lack of transportation and facilities like that. She said that if those kinds of things weren’t available, a lower income family would have more trouble surviving. She noted that Morse didn’t have the amenities like a community center, pool, library, or playground, or even a school, that you’d need to have for 112 houses. She said that it was in conflict with the ag users nearby. Thompson said that basically he was proposing to build a company town, and said that this wasn’t feasible for Johnson County. Lehman said that he also would vote no. He said that the application had a lot of good points, but maybe had too many things happening at once. He said that in absence of a government body, the petition presented by the residents carries a lot of weight for him, as representing the voice of the community. He said he had concerns about the traffic and the busy intersection with Highway 1. Neuzil said that he would vote to deny, and said he didn’t think it was the best use of the land. He said that this was on prime agricultural land, the infrastructure was not in place, and the development does not fit the area. Stutsman voted to deny. She said that there was not an Economic Development Plan in place that would target this area for this kind of heavy industrial use. She said it was not appropriate for this small community. Stutsman said that she had a real concern about the high concentration of low- or moderate-income housing in an area away from city services such as bus lines, grocery stores, and recreational facilities for young children. She said it would set up some real problems down the road, and said it was not responsible zoning. She said that when she supported the Land Use Plan and the village concept, she did not support it for heavy industrial use, but for residential use.

Moore gave the staff opinion that the positives outweighed the negatives. He said that it did have a shared well and wastewater system, as policies indicate; its proposed mixed uses were meant to serve any future growth or existing user growth; creation of low/moderate-income housing was a plus; job creation was a plus; industrial tax base was a plus, and there were very good roads. Negatives included the road impact onto Highway 1; removing ag ground from the inventory, especially 65 or better; if this weren’t a village it would be identified as rural/ag and he wouldn’t be doing the project there; and areas of the stream corridor was a concern. Moore said that staff had concluded that the project would be in compliance. He said that even though the staff conclusion was different than the group’s conclusion, it showed that there was more work to be done, with an Economic Development Plan to be sure that the County knows what it wants.

He said that the mock zoning created a lot of discussion between the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Zoning Commission. Lehman thanked everyone for their attention and their input. Lehman said he wanted to let people know that these were not black and white issues at all, but a lot of factors went into the decisions about zoning, and people don’t always agree on the interpretation of some of the factors. Moore said that the staff was pretty close to what the majority of the group was thinking, but said they needed still more tools to guide both of the groups as they informed the public. He said that he was feeling pretty pleased, despite the differing conclusions from the final zoning application. Lehman said that this meant that Planning and Zoning could give a potential applicant more guidance about what their chances might be, even though each situation is different and Board members change. Moore said that applicants can spend thousands of dollars to get an application in front of the Board, and said that Dvorak wanted to try to do the best possible job of giving advice as to their chances. Thus, he said, it was important for Planning and Zoning to understand where all the members of the Board of Supervisors and Zoning Commission were coming from as they talk to potential applicants.

Adjourned at 4:25 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary