Work Session: Review and Evaluate Mock Zonings Applications for the County’s Land Use Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Mock Zoning Application MZ01001

• Mock Zoning Application MZ01002

• Mock Zoning Application MZ01003A and B

• Mock Zoning Application MZ01004

Chairperson Lehman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 1:38 p.m.

Members of the Board of Supervisors present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission present were: Al Carr, Evelyn Bollinger, Randy Lackender, and Bob Saunders; absent: Maynard Hebl.

Lehman introduced the session, and said that the purpose of the meeting was to review and evaluate some mock zoning applications, for the interpretation of the County Land Use Plan. Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said that the Planning and Zoning Department liked to hold mock zonings for the benefit of new members on the Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore said that they were going to present 4 mock zonings: one for the rural/ag area, the North Corridor, the fringe areas, and the villages. He asked that the Board of Supervisors and Zoning Commission treat it like a normal public hearing process. First, he said the staff will read the staff report, and then there will be comments from the public, to make this as realistic as possible for the Board members. Moore said that some staff from Planning and Zoning as well as students from the University of Iowa’s graduate program were going to play different roles, supporting and objecting the applications. Moore said at the end of this portion, they were asking each Board member to write down how they would vote. The Zoning Department would then give their opinion, followed by the staff conclusion as to whether or not the zoning proposal was in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Hopefully, Moore said, this will generate discussion on these issues between the Board of Supervisors, Zoning Commission, and staff.

Moore introduced Planning and Zoning Intern Martin Matsen to present the first Mock Zoning Application, MZ01001.

Staff Report Prepared by Martin Matsen

Applicant Harry Neilson

Contact Person: Brent Wallus-MJS Consulting

Applicant’s Attorney: Stacy Anderson-Fitch/Anderson and Assoc.

Requested Action: Rezoning of 19.94 acres from A1 to RS

Purpose: To develop a 19-lot residential subdivision with dual access points onto Racine Rd.

Location: The parcel is described as being located in the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of section 26; township 81; range 6 west, in Johnson County, Iowa. Located on the west side of Racine Road, approximately 1/2 mile from the intersection of Racine Ave. and 180th St. to the north. This is also the Solon City Limits. The parcel is approximately 1/4 mile from the intersection of Racine Ave. and Jordan Creek Rd. to the south.

Size: The size of this parcel is 19.94 acres.

CSR: Averaged CSR is 69.6

Existing land use and zoning: Agricultural / A1

Surrounding land use and zoning: North: RS/A1, East: A1, South: A1, West: A1

Applicable Plan(s) and Code: Rezoning of this parcel is subject to The Johnson County Land Use Plan as well as the Johnson County North Corridor Plan. This Parcel Falls within the Solon City Fringe Area Agreement FA2 district, and is subject to this agreement.

Fire District: Solon

School District: Solon

File Date: March 8, 2001

45-Day Limitation Period Planning and Zoning: April 22, 2001

45-Day Limitation Period Board of Supervisors:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

This land is currently zoned A1 agriculture. This area falls within the Solon Fringe area FA2, which is defined as the Urban Planning Area (Growth Area). Within this area Solon City design standards apply.

ANALYSIS:

The proposed plan for this parcel would include a 19-lot residential subdivision with two access points onto Racine Ave. The applicant proposes using a shared wastewater and well system. In addition, the applicant is proposing approximately 1/2 acre lots, and has put more than 50% of the parcel into open space.

Solon has reviewed this application and has recommended approval. Solon City design standards will apply when this parcel is developed. The applicant has signed an agreement with the City of Solon agreeing to voluntary annexation of this development. After discussion with Solon City staff, it is apparent that long-range plans for this area are to be able to serve this property within a 7-year time frame. In addition, the applicant has also agreed to pay the city a "tap-in fee" of $1,000 per lot when a connection to city services is made.

COUNTY ENGINEER’S REPORT:

1998 IDOT Traffic Count (ADT) =120. Applicant proposes creating two access points onto Racine Ave.

Racine Ave. is a gravel road with a current 1998 IDOT count of 120 vehicles per day (vpd). It would appear that the 19-lots proposed for this parcel would not be in compliance with the Road Performance Standards. Given a current ADT count of 120 vpd on this segment of Racine Ave., the build-out projection for this number of lots would be 272 vpd. As per the Road Performance Standards, when the ADT exceeds 200 vpd, the development can only be approved at a 1:20 density level. Given the current road counts, it would appear that a total of ten lots could be built on this parcel.

There is a bridge to the south of this parcel that is scheduled for construction during FY 2002 (re: project L-B-25-1; B-25-1).

HEALTH DEPARTMENT REPORT:

The applicant proposes using a shared wastewater and community well system for this development. The wastewater system will be regulated, as per IDNR rules; therefore the Health Department has no objections to this application.

STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

The applicant proposes a clustered design with 50% of the area left in open space; in addition, a shared well and wastewater system has been proposed, which is preferred in this area.

The applicant also appears to be taking into consideration the inevitable annexation into the City of Solon. The question then remains what is a reasonable amount of time that an applicant should wait prior to developing a property in this area. Solon has somewhat committed to a 7-year time frame for annexation.

This application as currently proposed is inconsistent with the Road Performance Standards. As the County Engineer noted, the road count along this section of Racine Ave. would not support a development proposed for this density. Therefore, staff could not support this application at the proposed density

Applicant Harry Neilson (played by Dvorak) said that he didn’t understand what the county was trying to do to him, as it was his land, and it had been in his family for 50 years. Miller said that he should be able to do whatever he wanted with his land. He said that he has lived on the road for 20 years, and said it was a good road. He said that the county was fixing his bridge and paving 180th street, and said he had agreed to be annexed by the City of Solon. Neilson said that if the county gave him the 19 lots he wanted, he would be willing to seal-coat the road, and noted it was only 1/4 of a mile to a paved road. Neilson said he did not know why there was such a big problem with this application, and noted that the city said it was great, he thought it was great, and there were no neighbors, or only 1 or 2, objecting. He said that he wasn’t doing very well at farming right now because the economy was really bad, and said he had lost money on stock market futures, as well. Neilson said he did not see how this application could be denied.

Dan Persky (played by Graduate Student Dan Persky) introduced himself as a farmer, like Neilson. Persky said he had lived next to Neilson for 30 years, and said they had done well and been friends for awhile. Persky said he had to disagree with Neilson on this matter, because putting 19 houses on his lot could cause some serious problems for those that live in the area, including traffic. Persky said that 19 houses, even at 1-2 cars per house, is a fair amount of traffic to go into 2 access points on that road. He said that when they’re driving all their farm equipment around, they might have some problems. Persky also said it was possible that some big city people would move into the houses, and wouldn’t like living next to a farm, and could possibly get upset about the noise or the smell. Persky said that they should wait until they were sure the area could support this level of development and the roads could handle it. He said that there was no rush, and that there was plenty of land out there.

Neilson replied that he respected his neighbor’s opinion, and noted that Persky had split a lot off for his daughter last year. Neilson said that they had put a buffer around the outside of the development to protect from complaints about spraying. Neilson said that most of the land around the development was his, in any case, and said he didn’t see that it was going to be a problem. He said that the City of Solon was going that way, and that it was called a growth area. Neilson said that he was spending a lot money on things such as a shared wastewater system and drilling a well, and said that the sewer system was DNR-approved. He said that it will be designed so that they can hook up to the sanitary sewer. Neilson said that when Solon annexes it, the development will hook up to the city, and said he saw the situation as win, win, win. Neilson noted that time was important to farmers like him and said he needed the money now.

Lehman asked if they had an engineer’s report regarding the road conditions, why they would use gravel versus a chip-seal at the entrance to the development. Neilson replied that he had been told that the County adopted a policy in 1989 that said that they wouldn’t allow any more seal-coat roads into the county. Matsen agreed. Planning and Zoning Commission Member Randy Lackender said that the County also has a policy that if a gravel road exceeds 135 vehicles per day, they will use calcium chloride at the County’s cost. Matsen said that at the current time the road count is 120, and the bridge is being fixed next year. Planning and Zoning Commission Member Al Carr asked about the surface of the 2 roads besides Racine Avenue, which is gravel. Matsen replied that 180th Street, roughly 1/2 mile away, was scheduled for pavement in the next 2 years, and Jordan Creek Road is a gravel road. Matsen clarified that Jordan Creek was between 180th Street and the property, and said that the bridge was pretty scary right now, but that it was going to be removed and replaced. Carr asked if, when the property was annexed by the City of Solon, would Solon take any responsibility for the road in the future? Matsen replied yes; at that time, they would. Carr said that in 7 years, they would be in a position where they’d probably be forced to upgrade the road, if there was a development or a plan for development. Neilson replied that 3/4 of the roads in Solon were seal coat, and said that small towns don’t worry about that.

Lehman said that if annexation did come, or was moved up, they would have to work at some type of a road maintenance agreement, unless Solon annexed ground on both sides of the road and took the whole section, from one intersection to the next. He explained that city trucks weren’t going to run down 1/4 mile, then turn around and go back, and the same was true of the County. Matsen said that it was his understanding that the city wanted to hold off and annex the whole area, from one crossroad to the other.

There was some discussion about the county’s policy and opinion about entering into road-sharing agreements with the cities in the fringe and growth areas. Moore said that the County does have problems when cities move out and annex land and don’t take a share of the road with it, and work out a road maintenance agreement with the County. Moore said that both the County Engineer and the Board of Supervisors frown on that. They prefer that they annex at least to the center line of the road, and then create an agreement with the County Engineer’s office as to how that’s to be shared and maintained.

Stutsman told Neilson that there was some merit in his application, noting that it was within the City of Solon growth area. She said that they were having problems with the number of lots and the traffic counts the proposal would create. Stutsman asked if he had considered lowering the density of the subdivision? She also said that she thought the plan was quite a non-creative use of the land, as far as out lots. Neilson replied that he told the engineers to do this as cheaply as possible, as he didn’t have much money. He said that he was a struggling farmer, and explained that the engineers had called it a concept plan, and that it if it were platted, that would be totally up to the staff to work with his engineers on the plan. Neilson said that as far as density, he had been reading a lot about sprawl, and said that the intent was to try to make the best use of the land, put in the highest density, 20,000 square feet per lot. He noted that there was a road that went through it to meet the requirement on cul-de-sacs at 1,000 foot. Neilson said that he hoped the Board would approve it based upon the fact that it was the best use of the land and the area, and said that he would be willing to work with the staff to make it more compatible with what the Board wished. He said that he would change it any way they wanted, as long as it was approved. Neilson said that he needed the density to pay for the sewer, the water, and the road improvements.

Planning and Zoning Commission Member Bob Saunders asked if the development could only be approved at a 1:20 density level? Matsen said that if they were looking at 10 lots, instead of 19, that brings the build-out to a traffic level that the road could deal with. He said that would require different zoning than RS; Matsen said that RS zoning leaves him open to develop more lots than 10 in this plot. Saunders asked Neilson if he would be interested in that, and asked if he wanted 20? Neilson replied that he wanted 19; that’s where he can make a few bucks and save his farm.

Harney asked Neilson about his statement about seal-coating the road, and asked what distance he was talking about, from where to where. Nielson said that he would go from the south access to the north access up to 180th Street, a distance he estimated at 1/2 mile. Harney said that they would be changing road surfaces at the end of his proposed addition, and he said yes, for 7 years. Matsen clarified that the 1/2 mile to 180th would start at the north boundary to his property. Stutsman said that this was gravel, which would go to seal coat. Harney said it would go to seal coat, and then back to gravel. Stutsman said that she knew the County Engineer would not go along with that; they would either have to put in a hard surface or Calcium Chloride, because the County was not adding any more seal coat roads. Neilson said he was in front of the Board to ask for a variance from that, just for 7 years. Lackender said that if the County invested that kind of money for 7 years, they wouldn’t get any money out of that road. Neilson said that the houses were going to be nice homes, and 19 houses at $250,000 per house is a lot of tax money. Lackender replied that it was not enough to pay for that amount of road for 7 years. Neilson said that he would pay for the road to be seal-coated, not paved, because seal-coating was cheaper than paving. Harney asked Neilson if he had proposed to Solon about annexing him and tying it together with their community, to which Neilson replied that they wouldn’t do it for 7 years. Matsen said that there was some property between that the City of Solon was having a hard time dealing with, as far as annexation, and they also would really like to annex the whole road section. Harney said that there was no guarantee this would be accomplished within 7 years. Matsen said that Solon has stated that their intent is to annex the section in 7 years. Neilson said that he had signed an agreement that when Solon comes out to get him, whenever it is, he will voluntarily annex; that’s part of the legal document that he would sign, and not fight it.

Neuzil told Neilson and Persky that he wanted to work together and get this worked out, and said that one of his problems had to do with the road performance standards, and he asked staff, in regards to this, if this would be against their current ordinance. Matsen replied that it would not fit with the current ordinance. Neuzil said given this, didn’t this make the Board’s vote fairly mandatory, that they would have to deny this request, as it would against their ordinance? Neilson said that they were the Board of Supervisors; couldn’t they change that just for him? Stutsman replied that he was right: they could change the ordinance, as this was within their powers. But, Stutsman continued, she didn’t sense that there was a lot of interest in doing that, and it wasn’t good policy to do it just for one applicant. Stutsman told Neilson that if he were willing to lower the density, then it would fall within the road performance standards, and maybe the Board would be interested in approving this particular application. Neilson asked what the Board would give him, and they replied 10 lots. He asked if he would have to put in the seal-coat or the septic tanks? Stutsman said no, he would be within the road performance standards, but noted that he would have to do the Calcium Chloride. Matsen said that at the 10-lot density, Neilson would fit within the road performance standards, but the Health Department might have some issues with septic systems, and those kinds of things. Saunders said that a city requires city standards that he’s going to have to do. Madsen said yes, eventually, they would have to be done, at the time of annexation. Neilson said he was willing to do that, and that he was trying to do what he was told by his engineers, trying to keep these lots small so he doesn’t contribute to sprawl. He said that he would take the 10 lots and run.

Thompson said she was sorry, but that she had some problems with the 10 lots, also. She said that the land has a high corn suitability rating, it is surrounded by ag, and said it looked to her like spot development, 7 years too early. She said that if the City were closer to being ready to annex, or if they were willing to annex his property, she would view it more favorably. Thompson said that she had placed a high value on the share of wastewater and wells in the cluster development, and if you took that out, she was much less interested. Thompson said she was not willing to consider a seal-coat road, and noted that the County has pretty well adhered to its policy against that. She also said that she took into account that Neilson's neighbor objected. Planning and Zoning Commission Member Evelyn Bollinger asked Neilson if he had actually approached Solon about annexing it, and he replied that he had, but said that Solon could not do it right now. He said that they did not believe in involuntarily annexing, and they would have to do that between he and the city. Neilson said that he had tried everything to save his farm, and said that the Board was telling him he couldn’t do it.

Bollinger asked Neilson to summarize the concessions he had made, and what he had agreed to. He said that he had agreed to the 10 lots, agreed to annex it to the City of Solon whenever they wanted, he wanted shared wastewater/shared well but couldn’t do that because of density, and would be willing to go to 10 10-acres lots with 50% out lot and keep a buffer around the outside of it for his neighbor. Matsen asked that the zoning on the amended application be changed to an RS-3 or an RS-5. Thompson asked if they were voting on the original application, or the amended application. Lehman said that they would have to defer and come back to the amended application later. There were some questions about the soil suitability, and Matsen clarified that Neilson had already agreed to pay for hooking these houses up to the city system when the time comes. Madsen said this raised the $1,000 he had agreed to pay up to $1,000 plus whatever it cost to get it into several thousand dollars. Lehman asked if that money would be put in escrow? What would happen if he died and had no heirs; who then would pay for the hookup? Neilson said that he would enter into a written contract that would become part of the abstract to ensure this would be paid.

Stutsman asked Matsen if he had done an analysis of lots available in the area. He replied that as far as RS zoned land, there is plenty available closer to the city. Madsen said this was part of the reason Solon was not willing to press the annexation at this time. Saunders noted that the analysis said that Solon City design standards will apply "when the parcel is developed;" it doesn’t say when it’s annexed, but when it’s developed. He said that this means he has to do it now, not 7 years from now, and said this would require Neilson to put in central water and central sewer. Neilson said that this was an issue that should be resolved at the time of platting, not now. He said that he would work this issue out with the City of Solon at the time of platting. Matsen summarized that at 19 lots, the applicant was willing to do the shared water and sewer, and at the 10 lots he’s willing to design it in such a way that that could be done in the future, but not actually do it at this point. Neilson said that Solon had agreed with the zoning, which was all he was after today. Dan Swartzendruber introduced himself as the Solon City Administrator, and told Neilson that, according to the Fringe Area Agreement, he needed to develop according to city design standards, and there was no negotiation on this point. Thompson said that he would need to put in shared water and septic. Neilson said that he couldn’t do this without his original application of 19 lots.

Each member of The Board of Supervisors and the Zoning Commission wrote down their votes, to approve or deny this applicant’s original application of 19 lots. The original application was unanimously voted down. Saunders voted no and noted that the CSR should not be an issue for city growth, because most land around cities had a high CSR. He said that it all came down to the applicant’s willingness to work with the County on the road issues. Saunders said that they had spent 10 years developing a road plan, and if he didn’t want to put the roads in properly, there was not reason to approve this. Carr voted no, saying that it wasn’t his position to help or hinder Mr. Neilson and his profit incentive. Carr said that if the property is rezoned, all parties have to live by the Land Use Plan and the Road Performance Standards. The 19 lots did not meet the road performance standards and this was the key issue.

Lackender voted for denial, saying there were too many variables. He said that they were not here to bargain with Mr. Neilson. Lackender said that the CSR, the Road Performance Standards, and the 7 years until annexation were all barriers to the application. Bollinger also voted to deny, based on the Road Performance Standards. She encouraged Neilson to speak to Solon about the numerous variations in his proposal, and said that he could perhaps return to the group in a couple of months with a different proposal. Stutsman voted to deny the application, particularly because of the Road Performance Standards. She said that there was some merit, in that this was within the 2-mile growth area around Solon, but she said that she didn’t think the time was right to do the rezoning now. She said that there were plenty of areas available that have already been rezoned for the building of homes. Stutsman said that she was sympathetic to Mr. Neilson and his financial plight, and noted that it was not easy to make a living on the farm. She said that they were here to make land use decisions, not financial decisions for the applicant. Neuzil said that he will denying, as it is against their ordinance, and he had no other choice. Lehman also said he was denying this, based on the fact that it was ag ground, away from the city. He said that the road issue also bothered him. He said that Neilson individual financial status isn't their concern, as they had to look out for the good of the taxpayer’s as a whole.

Thompson said she liked the fact that the applicant was doing cluster development, that he was in the Solon fringe area, that he was willing to agree to shared wastewater and well, and that his plan had 2 access points, something they often ask for. Thompson said that the reasons for denial outweighed these good points: high CSR surrounded by agricultural usage, not being in compliance with the County’s Road Performance Standards, Solon’s annexation within 7 years indicates that it’s a good chance to wait, and the neighbor’s objection and the idea that it might interfere with agricultural uses, and 180th Street is on the 5-Year Plan and will be improved in the next 5 years. Thompson said she looked at this as spot development, and said she saw that there were available infill lots, and said that she puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that the Zoning Commission denied the application. Harney also voted to deny the application; it goes against the Land Use Plan and the Road Performance Standards. Harney said that the application was 7 years out; there were no guarantees that the bridge was going to be built, and changing the road to gravel goes against the safety regulations for the County. He also said it was high CSR, surrounded by ag land. Lehman summarized that the application was denied on both levels, and said he appreciated the input from staff and all those concerned.

Moore said that if the applicant had been willing to work with the group and revise down the 10 lots, he would have met all the ordinance requirements under the current ordinances, particularly the Road Performance Standards. However, Moore said that they did see some negatives and positives as they looked at the application. The negatives were the CSR, and the expansion of the Fringe Area Agreement. He wondered if it was too early, even though the property is in identified growth area and is fairly close to the city. Roads and bridges, Moore said, were also a negative. The positives, he said, were that it was compliant with the fringe area, was within the growth area, Solon’s approval and annexation agreement, his original agreement to build to city infrastructure standards, and shared well and wastewater system. He said that this was a tough example, and he meant to make it tough for both the Board and the Commission. In the amended agreement, with the 10 lots, Moore said that they would have asked the applicant to delay building until after the bridge had been built and, when annexed, the City could develop the out-lot. He said that the out-lot needed to be redesigned, as the out-lot on the plan would not have been a usable out-lot. He did note that this was a timing issue, as most members of the Board of Supervisors and the Zoning Commission had noted, and that the applicant was too early.

Staff Report

Prepared by: Dan Swartzendruber

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Applicant: Henry Miller

Contact Person: MMS Consultants

Applicant’s Attorney: William J. Smith

Requested Action: Rezoning from A1 Agriculture to M1 Light Industrial

Purpose: Rezone a 28.42-acre parcel to M1 to establish a furniture manufacturing shop specializing in Amish-made furniture.

Location: Located in the SE 1/4 of Section 24; Township 78; Range 8 West of the 5th P.M. of Johnson County, Iowa. Located at the SE intersection of Highway 1 west and 540th St. SW in Washington Township.

Size: 28.42 Acres

CSR: 55.8

Existing land use and zoning: Agriculture/A1

Surrounding land use and zoning: North: Ag., Comm., Res./ RS, C1, C2, A2; East: Ag., Comm., Res./ A1, RS, C1, C2, CH, M1, M2; South: Agriculture, Res., Comm./ A1, RS, CH; West: Agriculture, Residential, Industrial/ A1, RS, M1

Applicable Plan(s) and Code: 1998 Johnson County Land Use Plan

Fire District: Kalona

School District: Mid-Prairie

File Date: March 4, 2001

45-Day Limitation Period Planning and Zoning: April 18, 2001

45-Day Limitation Period Board of Supervisors:

There have been numerous rezonings in this area during the past 30 years. Immediately to the east of this parcel are several businesses which are currently in operation. These include the Cheese Factory and The Stringtown Grocery. The rezonings that have occurred in this area are: to the north (RS-Z9411, 1.99; C1-Z8833, .86; C2-Z9212, 2.20; A2-1/23/76, 1.48); east (RS-6/9/69, 1.5; RS-9/22/69, 1.5; CH-1/20/69, 19.0; CH-10/30/73, .50; C1-Z00015, 10.0; C2-Z6107, .65; M1-Z6107, 1.03; M2-Z6107, .63); south (RS-2/22/71, 1.0; RS-Z9621, 1.15; CH-Z8503, 1.0); west (RS-9/22/69, 1.0; RS-Z8109, 2.0; M1-Z8929, 12.10).

ANALYSIS:

The applicant is proposing to use the property in order to manufacture Amish-made furniture. The furniture will primarily be sold to local customers and to tourists travelling in the Iowa City/Kalona area. In addition to the manufacturing of furniture, the applicant proposes using a portion of the property as a retail showroom. Preliminary plans have been submitted that indicate a 20,000 square foot shop/ fabrication area, along with a 4,000 square foot showroom facility. There would also be a warehouse/ storage building of 5,000 square feet for the storage of materials.

The applicant has approached the owner of the sewage treatment lagoons to the west of this parcel (a 12-acre parcel that currently serves the Cheese Factory facility, which has been previously rezoned M1), and has signed an agreement to use these lagoons for treatment of his wastewater. There appears to be sufficient capacity for a proposed facility of this size. The applicant also proposes using a single well for their facility.

COUNTY ENGINEER’S REPORT:

The applicant is requesting a drive onto 540th St. for the facility. The proposed drive will be approximately 750 feet from Highway 1. Applicant is asked to install turning/ accel and decel lanes in the event that traffic exceeds the 500-vpd threshold. In addition, applicant needs to dedicate to the County 70 feet of additional ROW from the centerline of 540th St. upon platting of this property. An additional 20 feet of ROW along the frontage of the property bordering 540th Street. A signed acquisition plat and acquisition easement agreement will also be needed prior to subdivision approval.

The applicant has proposed a drive onto 540th St. SW which is a paved road. The 1998 IDOT traffic count on this segment of 540th St. SW is 940 vpd.

HEALTH DEPARTMENT REPORT:

The wastewater system will be regulated by the IDNR, so the Health Department will not be involved. The applicant will have to get a well permit for the property.

STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

This parcel is located within the rural agricultural area. While the property does not fall within a village area or the North Corridor, there has been a tradition of a significant amount of commercial activity in the general vicinity. Under General Development policies of the 1998 Johnson County Land Use Plan:

3. MINIMIZE CONFLICT

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

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

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

3.4 Applications 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.

3.5 Reduce conflicts between incompatible uses by separating them completely or requiring buffers between uses where separation is not feasible.

Swartzendruber noted that the above tenets seemed to support this application. This development appears to meet the majority of these tenets. The infrastructure appears to be in place: i.e. paved road off of a State Highway; a shared wastewater system that is already in place. Conflicts should be minimal in this area, given the relative level of commercial activity already in place. The applicant has agreed to provide a fence/ buffer area to the surrounding agricultural uses during platting. In addition, under Economic Development policies:

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.

Again, it would appear that this proposed development would not adversely impact the surrounding land uses. In addition, it could be argued that this proposed development would complement the existing land uses and commercial uses that are already in existence. An Amish furniture factory could potentially benefit tourism in the area, which may have a positive effect on the local economy; adding value-added dollars to the region.

A possible negative aspect to this application would be that the County has not formally identified this area as a growth area, either residentially or commercially. This being the case, it could be argued that no new rezonings should be allowed in this area as per the Land Use Plan. Another consideration would be the other types of uses that are allowed in the M1 zone may not be as welcome in this area as a furniture manufacturing facility. Other uses for M1 zoning range from car dealerships to livestock marketing stations. The applicant has agreed to enter into a contract with the County, limiting the type of business to furniture manufacturing/ resale environment.

Swartzendruber said that he had done some work on figuring the CSR, and said it had been fairly high: 55.8. He said there was no flood potential, to speak of. He did say, though, that the slopes get to be a little stiff in the top end, at 14%-18%, but showed that the proposed building site was significantly out of that area.

Lehman asked if anyone was going to speak for or against the application. Applicant Henry Miller (played by Matsen) asked the members of the group to approve the application, and explained that this was not a big manufacturing facility; at 20,000 square feet, this was not a big space once all the machinery was placed inside the building. He said there would not be a lot of noise, and noted that they would be willing to sign some contracts committing them to a furniture manufacturing site, and that they would not resell the property. Miller said that the Cheese Factory’s location near the site was a big plus for them. He said that although the CSR is fairly high, there is not a whole lot of farming being done on it now, because of the slopes and tourists parking cars on the site. Miller said that the business would provide a lot of jobs for the community, and asked for the group’s support.

Ralph Yoder (played by Moore) said that he lived just south on Highway 1. Yoder said that he had a residential unit there, and said he didn’t farm. He said that he had lived there for 25 years, and noted that he was concerned about extra traffic in the area. Yoder said that Highway 1 was already a highly-traveled road, and the Iowa Department of Transportation was looking into improvements for the road. Yoder noted that 540th Street already has 940 vehicles per day on it, and said that when they had moved out there 25 years ago, the Cheese Factory and the grocery store were there, but not much else. Yoder said that he would like to see the area maintain its rural ambience.

Harry Neilson (played by Dvorak) said that he also lived in the area out there, and explained that he was not in the Amish or Mennonite business. He said that he would like to run auctions on this property, but they wouldn’t sell him the land. The County had told him that this was the only place he could have a commercial business, at the interchange near Frytown. The Neilson said that he couldn’t seem to find any property in the area on which to build his auction house. He said he believed that this was discriminatory, because he wasn’t in that type of business, but his family had grown up in this area as well. He said that he hoped the application would be denied.

Saunders asked the applicant if he had any problem with the costs associated with installing the accel/decel lanes on the road. Miller said that if they were necessary, they would pay for the costs. Miller also said that they were willing to give up the right-of-way, if necessary. Swartzendruber explained that the site was far enough from Highway 1 that it would not be an issue. Also, Stolze said, they did a preliminary research into traffic generation for that type of facility and that size of a retail space, and said that he didn’t think it would exceed much more than 200 vehicles per day.

Bollinger asked Miller if this was a business he was expanding and relocating, or one that he was starting? Miller said it was an expansion of an existing business, but noted that it was new to this area. Bollinger asked how many employees Miller had, and he replied that it was anywhere from 10-20. She asked if 200 vehicles a day was a realistic estimate for the number of vehicles per day, if this was high enough? Swartzendruber replied that he believed that it was, based on the IT manuals. Bollinger also asked if 750 feet to the driveway access from Highway 1 was sufficient, to be able to put turning lanes in there? Swartzendruber said yes, it was. Lehman noted that from the staff report, it looked like turning lanes would be required. He said the report said that when the count exceeded the 500 threshold, turn lanes were required, and noted that the count was already at 940. Miller clarified that the 500 had to be generated from the business, so that would be in addition to 940. Miller said that it had been explained to them that the turn lanes would be a potential benefit for their customers if it got to that point, so that was why they had agreed to it.

Persky said that he was a farmer who lived a little south of the land in question, and said he was concerned about taking more agricultural land out of production. Persky said that this land was being farmed profitably right now, and noted that manufacturing does not always mesh well with farming operations in the area. Persky said that he was also concerned about having too many tourists, especially if the business got as successful as the applicant hoped.

Public Health Department Environmental Specialist Dan Kramer said he wanted to speak on behalf of the Johnson County Health Department, and ask what kind of waste would be generated by the facility, and whether it would create a toxic byproduct. Miller clarified that they used all water-based, non-volatile lacquers and varnishes, and said it would be no problem. Kramer urged that they should get some kind of assurance from the applicant about this, and wondered if the DNR would be OK with that. Thompson asked about the sawdust, and Miller replied that they capture the sawdust, run it through a filtration system, and then sell it for mulching.

Stutsman asked if the Health Department would allow the business to hook up to the system at the Cheese Factory? Public Health Department Environmental Specialist Hillary Maurer answered that this was all determined by the engineer who designed the system; if they said that there’s capacity, then it’s fine. Stutsman asked if there would be an agreement clarifying this, if the application was approved? Swartzendruber said that the lagoon system had just recently been completed, and there was sufficient capacity to accommodate the applicant’s needs, and even more. Stutsman asked how they made sure this would occur, if approved? Swartzendruber said that there would be no building permit issued for this facility until the wastewater situation was resolved. Bollinger asked staff to explain why Mr. Neilson’s previous request for a similar commercial property on this site was denied. Mr. Neilson explained that they had told him that he couldn’t buy any land in this area, so he went down a mile south and found a person to sell him 17 acres to run his auction business. He said that it was on a gravel road, and said staff told him they wouldn’t allow him to do it. He said that he didn’t want to spend the money to go before the Supervisors and Planning Zoning Commission. He said that he was objecting to this application, because staff had told him that he didn’t have much of a chance. He said staff told him that it should be closer to the city, that it shouldn’t be on a gravel road, and that it was spot-zoning. Neilson said that he couldn’t seem to find anybody in the area that would sell him the land.

Kramer said that in a commercial and an industrial operation, and domestic wastewater; they ask for a water meter to be attached to measure the amount of water that’s going to be generated, just to be sure that there’s a check and balance with the existing wastewater facilities, so it doesn’t overload the current system. Lackender said that he should work with the County and the DNR on this. Kramer agreed, and said he envisioned a water meter being in place in this. Lackender asked how the applicant felt about this, and Miller asked how much one of those cost? Miller said he didn’t want to agree to something outrageous. Kramer said that it would probably cost $100, and Miller said he could do that. Lackender said he knew there had been a rezoning on some terrific farmland just east of the land being discussed. Lackender said they couldn't take financial matters into account. Miller said that when they were trying to decide where to put their buildings on the site, he said there were some pretty steep slopes toward the back, which caused the building to be placed where it is. He further explained that they’re trying to create a quiet furniture store, to get people to come in and look at the furniture. He said that he wasn’t sure that having an auction house on the same site would create the atmosphere they wanted.

Millie Miller (played by Hillary Maurer) said that this would be the first development on the west side of the road. She said that she drove by this site all the time and said she was really concerned about pedestrian traffic at that intersection. M. Miller said that at this point, everyone was on the east side of the road, and this would put activity on the west side, so some people will park their cars and walk. Lackender said that Ms. Miller had a good point, and said that he too had been through the intersection many times, and it was not a good intersection. Lackender said that he thought there should be a study done by the DOT on this intersection. He said that they had put a warning light up, but said it was still a very dangerous intersection. Harney said that the pedestrian traffic was also an issue for him, as well as the parking. He asked where the parking lot was going to be for that, and wondered if cars were going to be backing out onto the road. Miller explained where the parking was on the map, and said that the parking would be removed from the manufacturing area.

Saunders said he was voting for the application. He said that the goal was to minimize conflict, and said that every application was in conflict with some rule or regulation. Saunders said that this application minimized those conflicts as much as possible. He said that he was also pleased to see the economic development in the county, and that all industry did not had to be located only in the cities. He said that the applicant’s willingness to put the road structure in was a plus, as well. Carr also voted for it, for the reasons mentioned above. Carr noted again that they had to deal with the concern of the neighbors, and said he was sympathetic to the plight of having more traffic. He said that were mitigating the problems as much as possible and still providing opportunities for the community and the County, and though it was not an identified growth area, it certainly fell within the zoning pattern that they see in the location. He said that the DNR’s involvement in the water and sewer was a plus. Lackender voted for approval. He said it was good use of the land and location, and said it had good roads around. He said that the questions about sewer and water could be resolved, and noted that the application would provide local employment, which was a plus. Bollinger voted yes as well, and said she was pleased to see that the applicant was considering coming to Johnson County with their project.

Stutsman said she would vote to approve the application, as it was compatible with what was already in existence. She said it fit in well with what the County has in mind as far as economic development. Stutsman said that her only concern was that the wastewater system was down pat, that they will be working with the Cheese Factory to hook into their system. She said that she also wanted to make sure that they had a very clear understanding about the turning lanes. She said that she did not want to vote for the application with the idea that they were going to put in turning lanes and then have the applicant fudge on them at a later date. She said that she wanted to have the figures nailed down at this point, or this application would not go. Neuzil said he would be voting for this as well, as it had good infrastructure in place with the roads, water/sewer, it was on poor CSR land, and the economic development fit the area. Lehman said that he would be voting for this. He did say that he had a question about the water quality, and wondered if the DNR would monitor a system this size to be sure products weren’t discharged. He said that the traffic was also a concern to him, and noted that he would like to see Secondary Roads talk to the DOT about a joint venture to place a stoplight or stop sign there. Thompson said that she would be voting for the application. She said that she agreed with the things that were already said, plus she thought the applicant had good road access. She said that the size of the property was OK for the size of the facility they wanted to build. Thompson said that the sewer issue was partly nailed down but said she wanted to see the writing on it, as well. She said that the applicant had agreed to easements, a buffer, and turning lanes. She said that she did have some concerns with the traffic, mostly with people wanting to go back and forth between the furniture store and the Cheese Factory. She said she envisioned a bus being there, and having everybody running across the road, and said this had the potential for a future problem. She said that she was also concerned about future expansion of the facility. Inevitably, if it’s successful, they’ll want to double its size, and then there could be problems in the future. Harney said that he would be voting to support this as well, and said it would be a good fit for the area, as there were a lot of small commercial down there. He said it was a good area for economic development for the county. Harney said that he had concerns about addressing the waste, the DNR concerns about pollutants, the parking, and the turning lanes.

Planning and Zoning gave its staff opinion. Moore said that they had identified negatives and positives, and said that they were on board with the Board and the Zoning Commission. He said that the negatives were expansion of non-ag uses in what is currently identified as a rural ag area in the Land Use Plan and the conflict of the M1 Zoning Classification. Positives were low CSR of 55, the shared wastewater system, supports the Amish and Mennonite community, creation of jobs, great roads, and increased industrial tax base. Moore said that in conclusion this would not be in compliance with the Land Use Plan, when interpreted strictly. But, he said, it does fit into the economic development plan of the county. Moore said that the Amish are a unique population, and said that they have special needs. He said that as land prices have been going up, Amish farmers have been running out of land, and they need to find opportunities for farming or something else for the young people to stay in the area. He said that staff felt this was an opportunity for both the Commission and the Board to vary from the Land Use Plan’s strict policies and approve the application, if they wanted to.

County Attorney J. Patrick White said that nobody asked about the last line in the staff report. White said that this line contravenes the Board’s considerably long-standing policy that they don’t do contract zoning. White said that several members of the group had made comments about wanting to be sure of something before it developed. White said that they didn’t have any mechanism for that with an M zoning. White said that if they approved manufacturing zoning, then they issue a building permit, without a screening mechanism. White said there had been a suggestion in the past that they had talked about before, that could be done with a fairly simple proposed amendment. White said that they could turn the M-1 and M-2 zones into MP-1 and MP-2, to incorporate the site plan review process that now exists in the commercial zone. White said he thought that there was an argument to be made that they would want it even more for manufacturing than they do for commercial. White said that it seemed to him that they were all relying on the representation that this was only going to be furniture manufacturing and resale, when the County has absolutely no way to control that in their existing structure. White explained that once they approve M-1 zoning, whether before they start to build or a year after they’re in business, he said, they can put any use on that site except those that are limited to M-2. He said that he didn’t know if the Board wanted to revisit the policy against contract zoning at some point, and said that one of the reasons the policy was adopted was that they didn’t have enough staff to do it. Stutsman said that she thought it might be good to time that with economic development. White said that he thought if the Board was inclined to ask him to give them something to look at, they could do a fairly simple amendment to M-1 and M-2, and the site plan review, that would incorporate the site plan review process for the M zones. Dvorak said they had put in that line for this very reason, to bring up this discussion. He said that they had done this twice and said he knew that White had cringed both times. Dvorak said that they wanted the Board to have a better understanding that there is a mechanism, something they could amend to, that would allow them to do more control of the industrial zonings.

Carr asked if he was correct in understanding that they would have a process where the applicant would apply on the basis of what he was going to use it for, in addition to what the zoning would be? In the event Mr. Miller’s business was a screaming failure, and he wanted to reuse this as an auction house, he would have to go through a process of reviewing the next use, prior to approval? White said not necessarily. He said they could try to write the site plan review in a way that specified the use. Carr said that this was a 2-edged sword though, because if the business fails, it sits there vacant and empty. White said this was true, but that they could at least impact things like location of buildings, number of buildings, location of parking lots, screening. Stutsman said they were dependent upon the good intentions of the applicant, which sometimes worked and sometimes didn’t. White said that even the best of intentions might not work.

Bob Welsh said he was surprised none of the group raised the question that White had brought up. Welsh said that once they passed a zoning, that was it, and said he wasn’t sure that letters of agreement would work, or that they could do that. Welsh said his other question was on page 4, where it said that this was not an area that had been identified on the Land Use Plan for either residential or commercial use. He said he didn’t know what weight the group put on the Land Use Plan, and the order in which things happen. Welsh said that it seemed to him that they were ahead of themselves on approving the application. Welsh said that since the economic development plan was not in place, there was nothing to say that an economic development would take precedence over the Land Use Plan. He said that the process would be that they develop an economic policy and fit it in to existing plans. Welsh said he was surprised and disappointed that no one in the group raised some of these legal issues. He complimented Stutsman for bringing up the question of turning lanes. Welsh said they needed an economic development plan to lay beside the Land Use Plan before they did a lot of rezoning.

Moore said that Welsh had some very good points, and said that he had tried to point out to them in the summary he gave. Moore said that this was an opportunity for the group to vary from what the Land Use Plan said, because this was not identified as a growth area. Moore noted that the Land Use Plan was not law, but it was a guide. He said that all Land Use Plans, no matter how well they were put together, cannot think of all future needs and uses or growth areas. Moore said that they needed an Economic Development Plan and something that considered the Amish population in particular, their lifestyle and culture. Moore said that Land Use Plans should be followed closely, but could be varied from in some cases. Moore said that Welsh’s points were well-taken. Lehman noted that there were some gray areas, but they had tools to pursue to get more black and white.

Recessed at 3:10 p.m.; reconvened at 3:20 p.m.

(Continued in Part 2)