Chairperson Thompson called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 5:30 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Thompson said this meeting was to review the 5-year North Corridor Plan, and welcomed Assistant Planner Dan Swartzendruber, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore, Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak, County Engineer Mike Gardner, Public Health Department Director Ralph Wilmoth and Disease Prevention Manager Kot Flora from the Health Department.

Moore said the Board of Supervisors that adopted the 1996 North Corridor Plan asked the Planning and Zoning Department to review the plan, after the first 5 years of its implementation. Moore said Planning and Zoning staff has reviewed the adopted goals of the Plan and each of their objectives; Moore said he has managed this review, under Dvorak’s oversight. Moore thanked Swartzendruber and the Planning and Zoning intern Martin Madsen, for all of their work on the project.

Moore summarized that at the time of the adoption of the North Corridor Plan, the Board asked that the document be reviewed every 3-5 years. He said this is a common objective of most land use policy documents. Moore said the purpose of Planning and Zoning’s review is to determine if the adopted policies and goals outlined in the North Corridor Plan are being achieved. Moore said some of his conclusions are quantifiable, while others are not, and pointed out that this is the Planning and Zoning staff’s opinion as to the effectiveness of the plan.

Moore said the North Corridor is defined as the area north of Iowa City that is bounded on the east by Highway 1 and on the west by Highway 965. He said as of the year 2000, 23,545 people were living in this area, which is comprised of 4 townships. Moore showed some population trends, demonstrating that in 1980 there were 10,500 living in the area, 5,200 of whom lived in the unincorporated area. Of the 23,000 people living in the North Corridor in 2000, Moore explained, 11,500 live in the unincorporated area. Moore gave some population projections for the next 20 years, estimating that by 2020, Johnson County’s population will be 153,000, the North Corridor population 52,000, of whom about half (26,000) will be living in the unincorporated area.

Moore said the North Corridor Plan is basically organized into 6 main goals; each of those goals contain one or more objectives. The first goal, he said, is to preserve the scenic, rural, and natural character of the North Corridor. Moore noted that this is a very difficult goal to quantify. The first objective under this goal is to encourage the use of clustering to preserve open space. Moore showed an example of a clustered subdivision that was built in the North Corridor, since the adoption of the Plan. Moore also showed that in 1996, the average lot size in subdivisions was 4.22 acres. In the following years, Moore said, the average lot size was reduced to 3.55 acres in 1997, 1.25 acres in 1998, 2.19 in 1999, and 1.64 acres in 2000. He noted that in 1996, 40% of the developed land was in outlots, while this percentage dropped to 37% in 2000. Moore said this is due to the skewing of numbers by 2-lot subdivisions that have one small lot and a large outlot, as large as 35-38 acres. Moore said other indicators are more accurate devices to measure the amount of land being consumed, such as the average lot size.

The second objective under the first goal of preserving the natural character of the North Corridor is to encourage growth that is sensitive to surrounding areas, by using site design to ensure the least disturbance of natural features and land. Moore explained that this goal has for the most part been realized by the market itself; however, using the clustered subdivision concept has allowed the provision of open space, and protection of sensitive areas. Moore said that the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, if and when adopted, would give the County the power to ensure the continuation of the current trends.

The 3rd objective under the first goal is to utilize existing Health Department regulations to regulate development densities. Moore said that the Planning and Zoning Department has been doing this, but said they wonder if the Health Department regulations are the proper way to regulate densities. Moore said Planning and Zoning staff feels that densities should be regulated by adopted land-use policies of the Board of Supervisors, with the Health Department regulations reinforcing those policies. He said this would not only help regulate, but would also encourage the implementation of shared systems, even among 2 and 3 lots.

The second goal of the North Corridor Plan, Moore stated, is to preserve valuable agricultural lands and protect agricultural operations. The first objective is, where possible, to preserve agricultural resources by identifying and designating significant areas of productive agricultural land. Moore said a Corn Suitability Rating (CSR) greater than 65 on 30 or more continuous acres indicates an area of productive agricultural land. He said this is still a good goal and objective, but in part of the North Corridor, agricultural uses and operations are the incompatible use. He suggested it might be time to re-identify the North Corridor’s boundaries, as the fringe areas of the currently-identified North Corridor may be more appropriate for rural uses than for non-agricultural development. Moore showed the group some rezoning data; in 1996, he noted they rezoned 164 acres, through 21 applications, for an average of 7.82 acres per request. By 2001, he said, they rezoned 4.2 acres in the North Corridor, through one application; Moore said this was for the church at the intersection of Highway 380 and 120th Street, by Shueyville. Moore said the number of applications and the number of acres being requested for rezoning are changing, both trending sharply downward. Moore pointed out that this is a reflection of the 1998 adoption of the Land Use Plan and in-fill policy. Moore showed a map of the current North Corridor area. He said that Planning and Zoning is recommending reducing the definition of the North Corridor area, by quite a bit, eliminating sections on the east, northeast, and west. Stutsman asked a question about this, and Moore demonstrated the proposed change on a large map. Moore said that the river was the center of the 1960 zoned ground, and Planning and Zoning staff thinks that redefining the North Corridor would help achieve agricultural and environmental goals, and would also facilitate planning and facilitating for roads.

The 2nd objective of the 2nd goal is to encourage the clustering of residential units onto marginal agricultural lands, where the CSR is less than 65 on a development site. Moore said this is a great objective when rezoning, but said since the adoption of the new Land Use Plan, the County has not been doing much rezoning in the North Corridor. The problem, Moore continued, is the already-zoned ground from 1960, some of which has very high CSR ratings. Moore said this is where they could use something that requires clustering, instead of merely encouraging it. This would preserve open space or allow for more dense development in the future, rather than preserving agricultural land. Moore showed the group a CSR map, and noted that much of the area that staff is recommending be taken out of the North Corridor has a high CSR rating. Thompson asked if most of the land that Planning and Zoning is recommending be taken out of the North Corridor is currently zoned for agricultural uses? Moore said yes, most of it is zoned agricultural, and has a high CSR.

The 3rd goal of the North Corridor Plan, Moore continued, was to protect environmental and historical resources. The first objective was to identify the quantity and quality of surface and underground water resources. Moore said that the County Health Department is currently in the process of conducting a water study to fulfill this objective, and noted that requiring shared wells and wastewater systems should go a long way in protecting water resources.

The 2nd objective of the 3rd goal is to reduce forest fragmentation and the destruction of natural habitats, and encourage wildlife preservation. Moore said that Planning and Zoning has been doing a good job of addressing this issue through the design of the subdivision plats, but the adoption of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance would greatly enhance the objective.

The 3rd objective of the 3rd goal is to preserve existing and newly-found burial sites, and report suspected burial sites to the State Archaeologist’s Office. Moore said they have done an excellent job at this, as the State Archaeologist’s Office reviews plats in the North Corridor for those areas that are likely to contain sites. Moore showed an example of a returned plat from the State Archaeologist’s Office, with suspected or recorded sites marked. He noted that the State does not like to give this information to the public, to prevent "treasure hunters." Moore noted that Planning and Zoning had found a burial mound at a subdivision on the south side of Lake MacBride. Although it was left on the lot on that subdivision, Moore said, it was protected during construction.

The 4th goal of the North Corridor Plan, Moore said, is to protect the quality of ground and surface water sources. The first objective is to encourage centralized wastewater disposal systems in large subdivisions of 9 or more lots. Moore said that Planning and Zoning staff thinks this should be a lower number; the current 9-lot limit is based on Health Department regulations and/or policy. Moore said they are having problems with the DNR regarding community wastewater systems; Moore reminded the Supervisors that they had asked the DNR to reconsider some of their requirements for siting. Moore noted that the DNR requires a 1,000-foot separation distance, which was put in place years ago for wastewater systems that had either surface water lagoons or an effluent pipe. Moore noted the Wisconsin Mounds don’t have either of those, and should be less problematic to the environment, and should get a different consideration. Moore said that shared systems are still desired, but maybe large community systems are not as desirable. Moore said the Board has recently approved a couple of subdivisions in Frytown where 3 lots share one Wisconsin Mound system; this reduces the number of individual wastewater systems, but still shared systems. Moore summarized that smaller shared systems could be desirable. Moore showed an example of a 47-lot clustered subdivision on the north side of Iowa City, on the west side of Prairie du Chien Road, south of Newport Road. He said this subdivision utilizes 2 shared community mound and wastewater systems, as well as shared wells, and noted these are positive steps toward protecting ground and surface water resources. Also, he said this subdivision is in Iowa City’s designated growth area, and could also be easily hooked up to Iowa City infrastructure when this becomes necessary.

The 2nd objective of the 4th goal, Moore said, is, where feasible, to limit the number of new wells drilled, and encourage shared wells. Moore said shared wells should be required--not encouraged--for any subdivision with more than 2 developable lots. He said that Planning and Zoning staff feels that the language in the County policy should be stronger. Moore said that shared and community wells should help reduce sprawl by creating smaller lots, creating a more compact development, due to infrastructure costs, which also yields environmental benefits.

The 3rd objective of the 4th goal is to limit development in areas sensitive to soil erosion, and encourage the use of soil conservation techniques. Moore said that Health Department requirements, the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and the Soil Resident Control Plan, required by ordinance and reviewed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), ensure that there are few problems with soil erosion control on subdivisions of 4 lots or larger. Moore said that the County’s Planning and Zoning staff submits subdivisions of 4 lots and larger to Amy Bouska at NRCS, for her review. He said that Bouska reviews the subdivisions not only for the roads and major infrastructure soil erosion control, but also the specific sites upon which homes will be built. Moore said that Planning and Zoning has been working with NRCS for several years on soil erosion plans, and thought they are being very successful at achieving the 3rd objective.

The 4th objective of the 4th goal is to increase public education efforts regarding septic tank systems. Moore said this objective is better suited to be implemented by the Health Department; he said there isn’t much that Planning and Zoning can do to achieve the objective. Moore thought that the Health Department could be better-supported by both Planning and Zoning and the Supervisors. Moore said as more dense development occurs in the North Corridor, education about septic tanks becomes very important.

The 5th goal is to foster orderly and efficient residential growth, ensuring that adequate infrastructure and public services are available. The first objective was to plan for and allow growth in areas with existing infrastructure that requires few new or additional services. Moore noted that one of the only infrastructures provided by the County itself is roads. He said that through the adoption of the Road Performance Standards, the Right-of-Way Dedication Ordinance, and by reducing sprawl, the County can, at least, concentrate development so it is easier to serve for such services as law enforcement, ambulance, and fire departments. Moore noted that the Road Performance Standards and the 5-Year Road Plan allow the County to time its growth, by setting thresholds on its roads and ensure that the roads are not overburdened. The Right-of-Way Dedication Ordinance, Moore explained, is a move towards the concept of "the user pays." Moore said this ordinance mandates that subdivisions give the County enough right-of-way to allow for future improvements on the roads on which they are located.

The 2nd objective of the 5th goal is to generate and enter into mutual Fringe Area Agreements with local governments in the North Corridor. Moore said that Johnson County has Fringe Area Agreements with North Liberty, Coralville, Swisher, Solon, and Iowa City, and the process has recently started with the City of Shueyville. Moore said this coordinates growth so a city can annex when ready, and be able to use land at the least cost to them. He noted that Fringe Area Agreements also help the County reduce leapfrog development, and inefficient, costly sprawl.

The 3rd objective of the 5th goal, Moore noted, is to encourage and promote future population growth to establish within municipalities in the fringe areas. Moore said that the County has been encouraging developments to occur within the cities, especially with the Land Use Plan and Fringe Area Agreements. Moore said the County has been discouraging development in the fringe areas outside identified growth areas for the city. He said that the County has been treating all areas within the fringe area outside the growth area as a rural agricultural area, and not rezoning to non-agricultural uses. Moore said this prevents leapfrog and sprawl development.

The 4th objective of the 5th goal is to ensure that new or extended roads accessing or within subdivisions meet County Engineer’s standards for right-of-way width, roadway width, the number of accesses, access points, and other regulations based on expected traffic and location. Moore said this has been done exceptionally well over the past years, again due to the adoption of the Road Performance Standards, the Right-of-Way Dedication Ordinance, and the cul-de-sac maps and length requirements, from a few years back. Moore said this ensures that not only the development itself has good roads, but also that the County’s roads are capable of handling the traffic impacts, and are safe for both residential users and emergency vehicles. Moore showed some recent road improvement projects, including projects on Prairie du Chien Road and Mehaffey Bridge Road. He noted that 180th Street into Solon is on the 5-Year Road Plan for FY 03 and 04, and another section of Prairie du Chien Road is scheduled for 2007. Moore noted that the current Board of Supervisors is addressing the County’s responsibility to the 1960 zoning decisions by improving arterial roads that service the residentially-zoned areas. Moore suggested other roads that the County might consider upgrading: Scales Bend Road, north of North Liberty, Hendershot Road, Sandy Beach Road, and Stewart Road.

Goal 6 is to foster commercial and industrial growth in appropriate areas of the North Corridor. The first objective is to reduce conflicts between commercial/industrial areas and residential areas, by separating them completely, or requiring buffers between uses, where separation is not feasible. He said that the County needs to work on creating and adopting buffering standards and requirements. Moore noted that the County has begun work on a County-wide Economic Development Plan, which will help identify what commercial/industrial uses are appropriate for the North Corridor, and where they should be located. He said the bigger picture is that Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Johnson County, ICAD, and the University of Iowa have a North Corridor Planning Committee already in place, regarding commercial development in the corridor between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City. Moore said that Planning and Zoning feels the Board of Supervisors should be involved in this discussion; most of the land talked about by this committee is land under the Board’s jurisdiction and responsibility.

The 2nd objective of Goal 6 is to encourage commercial and industrial development at major road intersections, where adequate transportation infrastructure exists, and the land area will adequately accommodate on-site wastewater treatment, and water from outside wells is available. Moore said the Economic Development Plan should also help with this objective, at least with identifying appropriate sites. Moore said regarding well and wastewater systems, the earlier discussion about the importance protecting both surface and ground water is still relevant. In most areas of the North Corridor, Moore stated, commercial development should serve residents and users of both lakes. Moore said that Planning and Zoning doesn’t think too many areas in the corridor should be developed either commercially or industrially. Instead, he said, most development of these types should occur in the corridor served by Highways 965 and 380, not near the river or in the areas of Sugar Bottom Road or Newport Road.

The 3rd objective of Goal 6, Moore said, is to encourage commercial and industrial development in fringe areas where municipal transportation, water, and sewer service is readily available, or on-site service meets the standards of the County Health Department.

Again, Moore said that the Economic Development Plan and the Fringe Area Agreements address this objective. He reminded the Supervisors that the County’s various Fringe Area Agreements identify growth areas and Land Use Plans, and what uses they want to see as the boundaries of the cities grow out and annex. If it’s beyond the fringe area, Moore said, it would then fall into the Board’s Economic Development Plan, which he hoped the Supervisors would eventually adopt. Other than a few home businesses, Moore said, there has been very little commercial/industrial development. Most of the development has been in areas where fringe area agreements are in place, or at the intersection of 380 and 120th Street.

In conclusion, Moore said, Planning and Zoning feels that the adopted policies and goals outlined in the North Corridor Plan are being met. He stated that the influential variables in achieving those goals have been the Board’s dedication to policies within the North Corridor Plan, and the adoption of the 1998 Johnson County Land Use Plan. Moore said the Land Use Plan’s identification of appropriate growth areas for the County--the North Corridor and within the villages--coupled with the Board’s in-fill policy, has led the County to become more proactive with planning policy. The most important piece of the puzzle, though, Moore said, has been the Board’s decision-making; no matter how good the plan, it does not succeed if the decision-makers do not follow it. Moore said that all of Planning and Zoning’s data indicates that Johnson County’s plan is being adhered to, and therefore the goals of both the Land Use Plan and the North Corridor Plan are being achieved.

Next, Moore posed a question: how can Johnson County continue to improve upon the positive trends currently being set? He detailed 7 recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Department that they believe will aid the Board in achieving this goal. First, Moore said, is to adopt a Sensitive Areas Ordinance; this would allow the County to begin creating a sensitive areas database that can be accessed to quantify some of the objectives and goals outlined in the North Corridor Plan. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance would also help create open space, Moore said, and help protect and preserve the environment. Second, Moore said, the Board should require shared wastewater systems. This does not mean that they should require common, community systems, but shared systems. Moore said this enhances ground water protection, facilitates clustered subdivisions, reduces sprawl, and protects and preserves environmentally sensitive areas. Thirdly, Moore continued, the Board should require shared wells; again, this does not mean requiring community wells, but shared wells. Moore said this helps with water quality and quantity issues, preserves environmentally sensitive areas, and helps reduce sprawl. Fourth, Moore recommended continuing to plan for and improve the transportation network. He said the 1960 zoned ground in the North Corridor is an identified growth area, and arterial roads should be identified and upgraded; he noted these included Scales Bend Road, Hendershot Road, Sugar Bottom Road, and Newport Road. Moore said that whether or not anyone one likes the 1960 zoning today, the people that own the 1960 zoned ground have a right to use the ground as it was zoned. Moore said this issue needs to be addressed, and the County’s way to do so is by addressing the transportation issue. Fifth, Moore recommended redefining the North Corridor boundaries; he said the Planning and Zoning Department’s recommendation outlined earlier in the meeting would reduce the North Corridor by almost half. Right now, he said, although very little of that ground is zoned residential, people argue that it should be, because it’s in the North Corridor, the Board’s identified growth area. To prevent leapfrog development, Moore said, the Board could reduce the size of the North Corridor. A 6th recommendation, Moore said, is to incorporate the North Corridor Plan into the Land Use Plan. He said the North Corridor Plan is a sub-area plan, and can be eliminated. He said the County’s primary planning document is the Land Use Plan; any other plan created after that is subservient to the Land Use Plan. Moore noted that the Land Use Plan already recognizes the North Corridor, and anything the Supervisors want to do with policies affecting this area can be folded into the Land Use Plan. Moore said this move would make the County’s planning documents more user-friendly and accessible, both to Planning and Zoning staff and to the public. Seventh, Moore recommended sending the North Corridor Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission for public hearings, and the Planning and Zoning Commission should work on the North Corridor Plan in focus sessions at the beginning of their meetings. Moore said Planning and Zoning staff could facilitate this process. With these 7 recommendations, Moore said, his presentation was complete.

Stutsman complimented Moore on the outstanding job he did on organizing and presenting this material. Moore thanked Stutsman for her compliment, and said he has worried about this presentation, because much of the information he presented was difficult to quantify. Moore also thanked Swartzendruber and Madsen for all of their help.

Stutsman asked Wilmoth for his response to Moore’s suggestions regarding shared wastewater systems and wells. Wilmoth said today is the first time he has seen this information in print, and thought Moore’s ideas are generally good ones. Wilmoth said he would like to look at how the Board would handle the requirement of shared wastewater systems and shared wells.

Thompson said she came across a section of the Iowa Code that seems to allow Boards of Supervisors to administer a program where they would issue bonds, such as Industrial Revenue Bonds, for subdivisions that wanted rural wastewater systems. She said this would allow the issuance of a tax-free bond, which right now would give the subdivision low interest, if they wanted? She asked if other Supervisors would be interested in doing something like this? Thompson thought that there would be some subdivisions in Johnson County that would be interested in using a rural water system. Stutsman asked if they had done this at Lake MacBride? Dvorak replied yes, they had. Flora said they actually are a Sanitary Sewer District, which allows them to assess a levy. Thompson thought this would work much like Industrial Revenue Bonds; there would be a County policy. But, she continued, the organization would actually be borrowing the money; the only privilege they would get would be the ability to have tax-free rates on their borrowing. Lehman said this could be either for a new application, or for an area that has septic tanks, and wants to move to a central waste system.

Stutsman said there is a significant population in the North Corridor; some entire counties in Iowa have less people that the North Corridor population. She said they aren’t little subdivisions, and the Board should think about some alternatives. Stutsman cautioned against the use of so many separate septic systems and wells in the area. Lehman said they could at least try to cut down on the numbers of wells and wastewater systems. Stutsman asked about rural water; was this feasible? Moore said a few years ago, the rural water representative came to the Board of Supervisors and talked about this possibility. Stutsman thought they had been before the Board again, since this time, but didn’t have enough signatures on their petition. Dvorak mentioned that the citizens of Swisher had voted not to have rural water.

Lehman asked about the specificity of the County’s use of the term "growth area," and wondered if narrowing the definition of the North Corridor was an attempt to improve this? Moore said that Planning and Zoning staff is definitely trying to concentrate the development where they would like to see it occur. Moore said if they develop everywhere in the North Corridor, as it is currently defined, then all of the roads are going to have to be upgraded. Lehman said this meant concentrating resources in one area; Moore said this was exactly right. Lehman spoke of the idea of what Moore called "Transfer Development Rights," where 2 landowners do a land exchange. Moore said that the Planning and Zoning Department has looked at this issue, but not very seriously. In the far future, more than 15 years away, Moore said, Planning and Zoning staff envisioned the whole North Corridor--as it is currently defined--being used for residential, non-agricultural uses. Moore said he thought that Iowa City and Cedar Rapids would continue to grow toward each other, as they have in the past few decades. He noted the presence of 2 major recreational lakes, great attractions for both visitors, tourists, and as living areas. Right now, though, Moore said, the County doesn’t have a lot of financial resources, and reducing the area of the North Corridor will allow the County to better concentrate its monies.

Stutsman asked Gardner if the road in the North Corridor area could be done to urban, residential standards, using curbs and gutters? Gardner replied they could do this, but noted there is more expense involved. Stutsman asked if this meant less right-of-way, or lower speeds? Gardner said it would typically mean less right-of-way, but more expense. Gardner noted that there is little expense in draining water into ditches, but storm sewers, intakes, manholes, and the other infrastructures involved with storm sewers are more expensive. Stutsman asked if they had done this on Prairie du Chien; Gardner replied yes, on the south end. Gardner said they were able to stay within the existing right-of-way on that stretch of road. Stutsman and Lehman asked if the design of the road affects the vehicle speeds on the road, and Gardner replied yes, but doubted that people would be willing to drive 25 miles per hour for 15 miles. Lehman asked if the road design could also affect cost-sharing and funding, such as Farm-to-Market funds? Gardner said he didn’t think the money would go as far, because the project would be more expensive, and said he would have to check on this issue. Lehman wondered if the money saved on buying right-of-way would compensate for the increased cost of putting in curbs and gutters.

Stutsman asked Moore what he intended for the next step in the North Corridor Plan. Moore said Planning and Zoning had hoped the Board would send it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, with the idea that they would incorporate the current North Corridor Plan into the already extant Land Use Plan. Moore said they could beef up the policies already in the Land Use Plan to try and meet the Board’s goals and objectives, and would ask the Zoning Commission to deal with this issue for part of each of their meetings. Thompson asked if Moore was thinking of this process as public input into the North Corridor Plan revision? Moore said yes, and explained that State law dictates that the Zoning Commission write the plan, and the elected officials--in this case the Board of Supervisors--either adopt the plan, revise it, or send it back to them. Moore said this is the normal process. Moore noted, again, that the Planning and Zoning Department does not think that a lot of changes are necessary; the policy is currently being effectively implemented and used. Stutsman said the biggest change would be the change in the border definition.

Stutsman asked about Rapid Creek, and wondered about including that in the North Corridor? Moore acknowledged that he has heard this from a number of Board members, but said that Planning and Zoning staff doesn’t want to deal with this. Moore said that if there are 3 votes on the Board of Supervisors, they could direct the department to pursue this. Moore said the current Land Use Plan does not designate the Rapid Creek Area as a growth area, and Planning and Zoning staff does not currently want to consider it as one. Moore noted that the Board could amend the Land Use Plan, and said that if the Board directs the Planning and Zoning Department to include the Rapid Creek area in the North Corridor, they would do so.

Lehman wondered about calling the area a separate growth area, such as the Rapid Creek Growth Area or Corridor. This would avoid trying to join it to the already existent North Corridor growth area. Dvorak said the road servicing the Rapid Creek area is already exceeding the County’s vehicle threshold for a seal coat road, at about 1,000 vehicles. As such, Dvorak continued, they wouldn’t be able to allow development in the area anyway, and Planning and Zoning did not want to spend a lot of time working on an area that cannot be developed. Thompson noted that the seal coat road is also not on the 5-Year Road Plan. Thompson asked about this area’s status in the Iowa City Fringe Area Agreement? Dvorak answered that the Rapid Creek Area is in Iowa City’s agricultural zone, outside their growth area. Moore said that the County adopted a policy agreement with Iowa City several years ago, based on the Rapid Creek Study. Moore said that previous Boards of Supervisors had been allowing residential development to occur in the area, and Iowa City noticed that there were some negative impacts related to the development, including some flooding. Moore said this is how the County and the City of Iowa City agreed on the rule that development is allowed to occur at a 3-acre density. Moore repeated that if the Board directs Dvorak to include the area, the Planning and Zoning Department would comply. Lehman said that the Board has to be realistic in light of its limited resources; the Supervisors should focus on a limited area and concentrate resources to provide the best services and infrastructures possible. Thompson said it is clear that the Rapid Creek area is an area where people want to live, and predicted the Board will continue to hear requests for rezoning the area. Harney thought that the area was a good area for development, because it isn’t very good farm ground.

Neuzil said there isn’t anywhere that the County is currently allowing growth in the North Corridor. Moore agreed that the County has really limited itself because of the road counts on Newport Road and Sugar Bottom Road, the 2 main arterial roads in the area. Moore said they could still develop near Curtis Bridge Road, south of Shueyville. In-fill development is still allowed, Moore said, but the seal coat roads in the area are limiting most development. Moore reminded the Board that they could reconsider the County’s Road Performance Standards, as raising the threshold of vehicle counts on seal coat roads would allow for more development. Thompson said several subdivisions off Dubuque Street still have available lots. Neuzil said this is because Dubuque Street is a new road. After a discussion about the boundaries of Planning and Zoning’s redefined North Corridor area, Neuzil repeated that until the roads are upgraded, no development is allowed anywhere. Dvorak noted that Prairie du Chien Road has been upgraded, and the residentially-zoned land on this road is still vacant. Also, Dvorak said, Mehaffey Bridge Road has recently been improved, and a lot of land on this road is also zoned RS, and a lot of zoned ground also exists on 180th Street. Dvorak said the policy idea since 1960 has been that when the County builds the road, development will follow, if it’s zoned residential.

Thompson asked about the status of Scales Bend Road, and Dvorak replied that they haven’t done anything with that. She asked where it was on the 5-Year Road Plan, and others in the group replied that it has been moved off the immediate plan, to the list of future projects. Moore said that Scales Bend Road is important not only for the zoned ground located near the road, but also because it is a major attraction for the users of the lake.

Addressing Neuzil’s issue about the scarcity of available land for development, Moore said there is also some zoned land north on Dubuque Street, past Stewart Road on the way to North Liberty. Dvorak said that there was some discussion about Hendershot Road years ago, and its connection to Scales Bend Road; this was to be done by private developers, so the County shelved the project. Dvorak said if private developers improve Scales Bend Road, this would make more land available for development, and at no cost to the County.

Harney asked if a lot of the development already in existence in the Sugar Bottom Road area would still be included in the North Corridor? Moore said much of it on the north side would be excluded, but the southern areas would still be included. Farther north, near Solon, Moore said, most of the land is still mainly zoned agricultural. Moore noted that this will be a growth area in the future, but not now. The County does not have enough resources to allow development everywhere, because of the demands placed on the roads. Neuzil said if, within 10 years, Sugar Bottom Road is paved, half of the residents would be able to develop their land, and their neighbors across the road would not. Moore said this is why a 5-year review is a very important part of any planning document; in fact, Moore said, the Board could review the document even earlier than this, if the County spent resources on upgrading Sugar Bottom Road.

Neuzil and Thompson discussed some concerns about the proposed redefinition of the North Corridor area. Neuzil said he was concerned that the current design would result in having no development allowed on a newly-improved road. Neuzil said he didn’t think Johnson County could afford to pave a section of a road, and then not allow for development to occur on it. Moore said the road would be used to get drivers from the development to the transportation roads, but said he saw Neuzil’s point. Harney thought it would make sense to keep the road as a winding road, but upgrade it with curbs and gutters, and reduce the speed limit. Moore said this is a possibility. Thompson asked if these types of issues, such as the exact boundaries of the North Corridor area, are things that the Zoning Commission would seek public input on, and work out, and then bring recommendations back to the Board of Supervisors? Moore said yes; Planning and Zoning is hoping that the Board will work out some ideas--either today or in a future work session--to send to the Zoning Commission to give them direction. The Zoning Commission would then hold public hearings, listen to the Board’s recommendations, listen to public input, and incorporate both of these elements into the Land Use Plan. Dvorak clarified that they did not expect an answer from the Board of Supervisors today; it might take additional work sessions. Neuzil said he favored incorporating the North Corridor Plan into the existent Land Use Plan, rather than trying to define the pieces separately. Moore said combining the 2 planning documents would make it easier for both the public and the Planning and Zoning staff to access and deal with. Dvorak clarified that conducting 5-year reviews of all the various documents--the Land Use Plan, the North Corridor Plan, and the various Fringe Area Agreements--was very time-consuming for Planning and Zoning staff, and also confusing for the public to understand. Dvorak said the various plans were also difficult for potential developers and engineers to understand and navigate.

Stutsman asked if targeting the North Corridor area for development limits the County to upgrading roads only in this area? Gardner answered that this depended on funding. Lehman said the 5-Year Road Plan is still a separate item, but there would be emphasis on the North Corridor area. Stutsman wondered if the Board’s consistent commitment toward targeting development in the North Corridor area excluded upgrading roads in other parts of the County? Gardner said that putting in curb and gutter roads in the North Corridor would be very costly, taking up a large percentage of what the Secondary Roads Department is currently getting in the way of funding. Thompson didn’t think that the residents living in the North Corridor area were particularly interested in curbs, gutters, and storm sewers. Stutsman said they are interested in maintaining the meandering shape of the road; if the road were upgraded, it would be straightened, as was the case with Prairie du Chien Road. She didn’t think that was what the public wants. Stutsman said she wants to try and keep the rural aesthetics of the area, but still have a safe road that can handle more traffic. Thompson asked why the speed limit on North Dubuque Street is 35 miles per hour, while Prairie du Chien Road is 55 miles per hour? Neuzil said that part of Prairie du Chien Road is 35 miles per hour, and is then 45 miles per hour. Gardner said the speed limits are based on recommendations from the DOT, which in turn are based on their traffic studies. He said that he didn’t know exactly what the DOT’s recommendations were; their recommendations may have been higher, but the Board of Supervisors elected to set a lower speed limit. Gardner said that speed limits are within the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors. Stutsman noted that enforcing the speed limits is the problem; Gardner agreed.

Thompson said she understood that Planning and Zoning’s recommendation was to require shared wastewater and wells for future development; she would like to encourage prior development to come into line with some standards, set by the Board. Stutsman said they could set up some incentives to encourage this, such as bonds. Moore said this issue came under the jurisdiction of the Health Department; Planning and Zoning could assist the pursuance of this goal. Wilmoth said that cost issues are what get in the way; residents of an existing development who have recently spent several thousand dollars maintaining or upgrading their individual system have been reluctant to participate in a shared system. Wilmoth said an economic incentive from the Board could aid with this problem, and said the Health Department supports shared wastewater systems and shared wells.

Laurie Tulchin asked Moore whether the proposed redefined North Corridor areas were prioritized areas, where one area was a possibility for development, but the other area came first? She wondered about Moore’s earlier comments about Stewart Road, and the possibility of development in this area? Moore said that the example of Stewart Road was to demonstrate the importance of in-fill; there were still a few hundred acres available to be developed in this area, and those need to be developed first. Moore said the purple area on the map, the redefined North Corridor area, was the area that is the most developed, according to the Planning and Zoning aerial maps and projections. Thompson noted that there are 4 roads that would need to be upgraded to allow in-fill development in this area; Moore agreed, and said this was Neuzil’s point earlier in the meeting. Tulchin asked if most of this area was around Highway 965, and north of there? Moore said yes.

Pat Cancilla said he would like to comment on the process that has been recommended in this meeting, with the topic referred to the Zoning Commission, who would deal with the topic at each of their meetings. Cancilla said this would make it very hard for the public to give input, because they would have to come every month for a number of months, for a half-hour at a time. He asked the Board to rethink this issue. Also, Cancilla asked, what happened when you developed this plan, which Planning and Zoning feels is a very excellent plan? He said in the early development phases, and the early plans were to have County staff and department heads come up with the plan, with the Planning and Zoning department head in charge. Cancilla said this proved unworkable, because none of the department heads wanted to get involved with this political issue. Thus, the committee was restructured, and 6-8 members of the public became the committee that then had input from the department heads; this provided an opportunity for public discussion which then went to the Zoning Commission for its review. Cancilla asked that the public be given a better opportunity to participate in the process by forming a committee such as what was done in the earlier situation. He said the committee could review the County’s plan, and allow them to make a recommendation, which could be altered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Cancilla concluded by saying that half-hour segments over several months will not allow the public input that a plan such as this deserves.

Tom Carsner said he has been dealing with the Board of Supervisors and County roads and zoning policies for 10 years. He said that in that time, there has never been an exact count of the number of lots that are zoned residential, where they are, and how many are and are not built on. He said the County makes a lot assumptions without this data. Carsner suggested that as part of the roads study on the North Corridor, it would be worth the time to put together a map with exact numbers on the above issues. He said that although this has been done piecemeal, for some areas, it has never been done comprehensively. This, Carsner said, would allow the County to know what actually might occur as far as development in these areas. He said zoning issues could be better quantified, and this should be done before continuing with the planning process. Carsner said that the land on the east side of the river is different than that on the west side, noting that much of the River Heights area, around North Liberty, is already developed. He wondered if that might be another subdivision of the North Corridor, as an area that is already largely developed. Regarding wells in the North Corridor area, Carsner said there is much anecdotal evidence saying that people are having to drill deeper and deeper to reach water. He suggested compiling more quantifiable data about this issue, to try and understand if the available water systems are being overtaxed, and if so, what are the consequences? He also echoed what Cancilla said about public input. Carsner said the process of creating the County’s Land Use Plan utilized a great deal of public input, and encouraged the Board to do the same in the process that joined the North Corridor Plan to the Land Use Plan. He encouraged the Supervisors to err on the side of more public input. He didn’t think the Planning and Zoning Commission was the best place to house the issue, because there would not be as much citizen involvement, and the Commission already had a lot of issues on its plate.

MMS Consultants Representative Glen Meisner said that Johnson County has about 900 miles of road. He said if the County wants a 100-year program of updating or replacing roads, it should be replacing 9 miles of roads every year. Meisner said the County should take a hard look at this issue and increase funding to the Secondary Roads Department, in order to better maintain the County’s road infrastructure. When he was County Engineer, Meisner continued, he learned that roads need to be replaced, or at least resurfaced, every 20 years. Meisner said one of the reasons he resigned as Johnson County Roads Engineer was because of his frustration at the lack of funding. Meisner said that currently, the roads are certainly wearing out faster than they can be replaced. Meisner said that Moore’s proposed changes to the North Corridor area are too restrictive, and urged the Board not to make this change. He said there are already limitations in these areas preventing development, such as the Road Performance Standards, and thought that the North Corridor, as currently defined, fit nicely between the 2 highways. Meisner said that growth has been stopped, other than in areas that are already zoned as residential areas. Even in those regions, he said, the lack of good roads servicing the areas prevent development. Meisner said the population projections are going to be way off unless roads are approved or more rezonings are allowed in the North Corridor. Meisner further stated that he thought the 1,000-vehicle limit on a seal coat road is probably too restrictive; he said those roads are certainly capable of handling more traffic than this. Even the County’s gravel roads, Meisner said, are capable of carrying more than 200 vehicles per day. In all, he stated that the Road Performance Standards are too restrictive. Meisner said an area west of 965 in the Swisher area, that has a very poor CSR, should also be considered as part of the North Corridor. Meisner noted that former Supervisor Jonathan Jordahl had supported this. Lastly, Meisner said, addressed Thompson’s statement supporting central sewer systems. Meisner said one of the problems with this was the law requiring that prior to installation of central sewer systems, all neighbors within a 1,000-foot zone of the proposed system had to give permission, or else prohibit the construction of the system. He said that previous Boards of Supervisors have requested that IDOT lower that number, perhaps to 400 feet, but this has not occurred.

Allan Berger said he lives on the west side of Highway 1, in an area currently in the North Corridor, but an area that would be removed from the North Corridor under the new definition. He said it is admirable that the Board of Supervisors is continuing to plan for growth within the North Corridor, and said he understood why the vast majority of discussion is centered around residential development. He said he would also like to see more support for agricultural uses in the North Corridor and in the northern part of Johnson County. He said his wife and he own a veterinary clinic, an animal-related agricultural use, and when they recently tried to relocate their business, they found that they did not have many options. He wondered if Corn Suitability Rating should be the only measure used to define agricultural uses? By using only CSR, other agricultural uses are eliminated from the discussion. Berger said he has no comprehensive solution as to how residential and agricultural uses can coexist, but thought that at least some businesses are clearly compatible.

Charlie Duffy said that Highway 1 should be left alone. He said that Moore’s proposed North Corridor area is back to the area defined as the North Corridor 40 years ago. Moore said he did not realize this. Duffy said that the County can’t go backwards. Duffy said this does not mean there should be a house on every hill. Regarding roads, Duffy said he would like to see the department work with the State DOT instead of the national agency. Duffy said he personally knows something about water, and there is a lot of water out there. He said that aquifers produce water and have to be protected. Regarding Fringe Area Agreements, Duffy said that the area in the Solon Fringe Area Agreement, is some of the best farmland in the area, and noted that they had turned down a zoning application in this area, due to the corn CSR. Duffy said if he was to do this over again, he would have voted for this application, a woman who had health problems. Duffy noted that land use involves tough decisions. He said there are farmers in this area that want to farm, despite the fact that their land is zoned residential.

Carol Spaziani said the population projection "blew her mind." If 52,976 people are going to be living in this area, this will mean wall-to-wall cities between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids. She said this would require governmental structures in addition to roads. She wondered if there comes a time when rural government is no longer enough, when people need city standards? Spaziani asked if the Corridor Planning Committee is planning only about Economic Development? Lehman said this is a sub-group of ICAD, but the Board of Supervisors is not represented. Spaziani thought that the County should be involved, if the population projections are accurate. Regarding economic development, Neuzil clarified that they are not studying rural economic development, but economic development in Coralville, North Liberty, Iowa City, or Cedar Rapids. Spaziani said with this density of development, things like neighborhood commercial centers will be needed. She noted that 25 miles per hour speed limits make it hard to move efficiently around the area.

Moore noted that he agrees with Spaziani’s last comment, that if there is any commercial development in the North Corridor, it should support the residential areas, so they can cut down on the number of trips. Thompson said that a lot of infrastructure is happening in the cities. She said when she first moved to the area, the closest grocery store was the North Dodge Hy-Vee; now, the closest grocery store is in North Liberty, and the next-closest is in Coralville. Thompson noted that there is a good road to get there, as well, which didn’t exist before. Thompson said the North Liberty Recreation Center also welcomes residents from the area, but noted she didn’t know if this would continue if there were 52,000 people.

Thompson asked Moore what is going to happen next? Moore said that the Planning and Zoning Department needs good direction from the Board of Supervisors about what it wants. After this, the issue will be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission, for them to hold public hearings and begin the process. Moore acknowledged Carsner’s point about involving the public, nothing that when the County adopted the Land Use Plan, Moore had gone out to 5 different cities and held visioning sessions. Moore said this can occur within the Zoning Commission meetings. He said the North Corridor Plan affects both the residents of the area and Johnson County residents; thus, it should be a county-wide planning effort. Moore said the Planning and Zoning Department generated a huge mailing list during the work on the Land Use Plan; this list, or one like it, could be used to ensure that the public is informed about the meetings. Carsner said that his point about this is that Planning and Zoning staff had gone out into the towns and communities. Stutsman asked Moore if they are considering having a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in different locations? Moore said no, he is talking about holding it in the Board room where the Zoning Commission usually meets. Lehman asked Moore if there was a citizen’s input group involved in the process of creating the Land Use Plan? Moore said no, that the County hired ECICOG and had gone out to conduct the visioning sessions.

Cancilla added that there had been a citizen’s committee involved in the creation of the North Corridor Plan; the County had hired an expediter when it had worked on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Cancilla said that part of that process had been to go to the more rural areas of the County--such as Swisher, Hills, and Solon--and get input. He reminded the group that while the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was for the entire County, the North Corridor Plan is a much more restricted document, but it was developed by a citizen’s group. Cancilla said he hoped the group would consider this, and not restrict the public’s access. Stutsman noted that of the members who had served on the North Corridor Plan’s original citizen committee, most of them lived in the area. Neuzil said they are not talking about redoing the entire plan, but only revising it. Moore agreed, and said they have some base policies that have been effective, but Planning and Zoning is recommending some revisions. Moore said that the Planning and Zoning Department is interested in providing an outlet for public input; for the 2 years they worked on the North Corridor Plan, the only people that came to the meetings were the people on the committee. Moore said that through the Planning and Zoning Commission, anyone who wanted to give input could do so. Moore repeated that the Planning and Zoning Department would take extra measures to involve as many people as possible. He said that people from all parts of the County should be involved, because the North Corridor affected everyone in the County. Neuzil agreed that the Zoning Commission was a good place for the issue to be housed. Stutsman said the Board would be doing the same thing whether it appointed a committee or took the issue to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Moore noted that the Board of Supervisors already has appointed a committee: the Planning and Zoning Commission. Stutsman said there seems to be a concern that people from other parts of the County will come to the meetings, but she disagreed, saying she thought that most of the people who would come would be from the North Corridor. Moore said during the meetings about the Land Use Plan, people from the cities participated, and many of their ideas are incorporated into the final version of the plan. Moore said all of us are residents of Johnson County, and said he did not think that residents of the North Corridor have special rights to the planning process of the North Corridor Plan. Moore said that it was Planning and Zoning’s staff opinion that housing this issue in the Planning and Zoning Commission opens the process up to everyone equally. Moore said if this doesn’t work, the Board can try a different idea, as they did with the Land Use Plan.

Thompson said she would like to hear from the Zoning Commission as to whether or not they could, as a group, agree to take the time for extra meetings, or set aside an hour during each of their monthly meetings. She noted that this extra hour would mean that their meetings would perhaps last longer. Planning and Zoning Commission member Bob Saunders commented that the time commitment on this committee has been minimal in the last 18 months. Saunders said that he first joined the Zoning Commission 18 years ago, and 3-hour meetings were common at that time. He said all the members of the committee expected a time commitment, so an extra meeting, or a longer meeting, would not be a problem at all. Thompson asked Saunders how he envisioned the process working. He answered that he thought the issue should start with the Planning and Zoning Commission, and said the committee is often thought of as only the Zoning Commission; people forget the committee should also be involved in planning. When the documents such as the North Corridor Plan and Land Use Plan were first generated, this was a process completely separate from the Zoning Commission; Saunders said his name was on these documents as the single representative from the Zoning Commission. At this point, Saunders said, the plans could be taken back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which now includes 4 new members, to give fresh input. Saunders said as the current chair of the Zoning Commission, he could take these issues to the committee, and see what they thought. If the committee is interested in scheduling some meetings in Solon or Swisher, this could occur, as well as the scheduling of additional meetings, if necessary, to provide better public access. Saunders said that the review process of a plan currently in effect should start with the Planning Commission; this is why this committee exists. Saunders said the current committee is one of the best and diverse groups the County has ever had. Saunders said the Planning and Zoning Commission will be very agreeable to listen to anyone who wants to take the time to show up at its meetings, noting that they do not impose time limits on public comments. Saunders surmised that there would be a couple of extra meetings scheduled for this topic.

Moore said that Dvorak had eliminated the Comprehensive Planning money from next year’s budget, as part of the cuts. This will not allow the Planning and Zoning Department to hire any outside facilitators for any comprehensive planning processes. Stutsman said she supported referring this issue to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Dvorak said he didn’t hear any criticism from the public that the plan isn’t working, but rather comments about logistics of where the meetings will be held, etc. He wondered how much staff time needs to be committed to reviewing a plan that most people seem to agree is working? Dvorak emphasized that this is a review; Planning and Zoning staff has some ideas for changes, and Dvorak hoped the public would add some quantitative recommendations. Dvorak noted that Duffy was the only comment that was really negative; Duffy doesn’t think the area should be made smaller. Harney said today is the first time he has seen this map, and said he can’t say whether or not it is an excellent plan, because he hasn’t had a chance to study it.

Saunders said that they Planning and Zoning Commission no longer receives the large number of requests that it used to; this is why their meetings are sometimes only 45 minutes long. Saunders said this is because the plan is working; the plan and road standards prevent people from wasting a lot of time preparing and submitting requests that are not going to be approved. Saunders said this supported the idea that the plan only needs to be reviewed, not rewritten from the beginning. He said the plan has really started to work in the last 5-6 years, providing direction and significant control over where growth in the County is going to occur. Harney added that the Board of Supervisors and the Planning and Zoning Department need to decide, together, where they want growth to occur, and upgrade roads in those areas, to allow the growth to occur.

Dvorak wondered if the Road Performance Standards should be reviewed by the Zoning Commission, as part of this process? Thompson said that she thought this is a separate issue; Stutsman and Neuzil agreed. Thompson summarized that the Planning and Zoning Department saw this process as fine-tuning the North Corridor Plan, and combining the North Corridor Plan and the Land Use Plan. Dvorak said that is Planning and Zoning staff’s emphatic opinion. He said he is disappointed that there aren’t more people present to give public input, but acknowledged this may be in part his own fault, because he didn’t send letters out to everyone in the North Corridor. Dvorak thought that word of mouth would have brought more people to this meeting. He said the public needs to be more involved. Neuzil said this meeting was advertised both in the newspaper and on the radio. Stutsman didn’t think the public knew what to respond to; now, they will.

Moore said if the issue is to be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Supervisors should give some direction about what the Planning and Zoning Commission should concentrate on during its review. Thompson suggested that the Board of Supervisors schedule a work session to follow the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, so the Commission has a chance to talk about this issue. This would also give the Supervisors a chance to think about the issue. Harney thought the Land Use Plan should remain separate from the North Corridor Plan; the Land Use Plan is County-wide, and should not zero in on a particular area. Stutsman thought the North Corridor Plan could be a subsection of the Land Use Plan, and the Fringe Area Agreements another subsection. Stutsman cautioned that they should be sure that all of these documents complement each other, without contradictions. Harney said if the Board develops some policies regarding the IWV area west of town, will this also be added? Stutsman and Thompson said yes, it could. Moore said this is what the Planning and Zoning Department would want to do; this could be handled by amending the Land Use Plan. Stutsman said the Land Use Plan could cover all of the areas. Saunders thought that the Zoning Commission needs to see today’s presentation, because 4 of the 5 members are new, and have no knowledge of it. Stutsman thought the document is ready to go to the Zoning Commission for public comment. Moore said he doesn’t disagree, but said he wants to know what the Board of Supervisors wants the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider. Thompson said she is interested in adding incentives about water and wastewater; do other Supervisors have issues such as this that they want the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider? Stutsman said she preferred that the community or the Planning and Zoning Commission decide what is important, not the Board of Supervisors. Stutsman noted there might be things that the Board of Supervisors has not thought of. Moore agreed, saying this is why they open the process to public input; Planning and Zoning staff and elected officials cannot think of everything. Moore said that since the Board of Supervisors is the ultimate decision-makers, its priorities are very important to the process. Thompson thought they need one more work session, after the Supervisors have a chance to digest the new information present in this meeting; Moore agreed. Thompson said this could be scheduled after the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

The group scheduled a work session to further discuss these issues for Tuesday, April 23, at 5:30 p.m.

Adjourned at 7:35 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary