Chairperson Harney called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 2:12 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) Executive Director Jeff Davidson commented that these road performance standards are the combined effort of JCCOG, Secondary Roads Department and the Planning & Zoning Department. He said when they met with the Board in July of last year, the most significant concern the Board had was the oil chip road threshold. He said the Board also requested some additional information, which they have summarized in a memorandum. He said the first item is a table that shows the projected build out taking the existing platted and zoned property and adding it to the current ADT (Average Daily Traffic County) to show what the build out ADT would be. This is what the Planning & Zoning Department uses to assess whether or not additional developments should be allowed on a particular road. He explained that currently the threshold is at 1,000 vehicles per day. He said they organized the chart so that if the Board placed the threshold at anywhere but 1,000 vehicles they can see what roads would be added. He said the Board also requested that they look at the cost savings that will accrue to the County by preparing to build a road to Secondary Roads design standards, but rather than an asphalt or cement concrete surface, putting a chip seal surface on it. He said the idea is that for a few years the County could get by with a chip seal surface and then convert the road to a more permanent surface in the future. He said it would enable the County to build more miles of road in that interim period. Davidson said they discussed that and felt that it isn’t something they could recommend to the Board. He added that they summarized the down sides towards the end of the memorandum. He commented that it is still something the Board can do, but he asked them to consider the down sides including not being able accommodate bike lanes or pavement markings, embargo complaints in the spring, deterioration of the new road grade from poor drainage on a chip seal surface, and construction delays and safety concerns while the chip seal surface is being maintained. He said that he is sure the Board is aware that chip seal roads require significant maintenance for the first 5 years. He said the bottom line is the residents of the County are going to expect something nicer than a chip seal surface on a brand new road.

Davidson said one other thing they had discussed in their previous meeting was the notion of exceptions to the Road Performance Standards. He said if there are just a few roads the Board is concerned with or some exceptions that could be established, such as the development is exempt if it is only so many miles from a paved road. He said a dead-end street not to exceed a particular length could be exempted as well. He said that is a way to get at some of the specific issues the Board has discussed with respect to Rapid Creek Road or Stewart Road.

Harney asked if they are recommending no change in the Road Performance Standards. Davidson said the fairest way to put it is that they haven’t found any evidence to lead them to recommend a change from the existing standards. He added that they are not saying that the Board doesn’t have the ability to change any aspects, but they, as staff, don’t see a reason to change them. Thompson asked how they chose their examples for the memo. Davidson replied that Assistant Planner Dan Swartzendruber picked them because they are considered to be the North Corridor roads with the most significant amount of development pressure. Swartzendruber added that they are all oil roads as well. Harney said one of the Board’s main issues is infill in already zoned properties where the owners expect to be able to plat and build. He said that Stewart Road is a prime example and so is Rapid Creek Road. Harney said Rapid Creek Road is very close to Highway 1, so he would like to see some growth there or be able to designate what must be done to allow the infill to occur. He said Stewart Road is similar because it dead-ends with only fire exits and has a small area there they would like to develop. Davidson that using those 2 specific examples they’ve stated exemptions, including a dead-end road in a mile or less in length, which will allow growth on Stewart Road, but not Scales Bend Road. He said there could also be exemptions for development projects that are within 1,000 feet of a hard surface road, so the Board would be saying that if for developments within 1,000 feet the safety concerns are reduced enough that development can occur.

Neuzil said that are many exemptions to consider. He said if the Land Use Plan says that they don’t want growth to occur unless it is contiguous to a city, then maybe the Board can allow for certain roads that are contiguous to a city knowing the city will be the ones to incorporate that land and they can pay for the infrastructure instead of the County. He added that the developer can also pay to upgrade the road. Davidson said that if Neuzil is referring to Rapid Creek Road, the city’s growth area only extend to the road, so it doesn’t quite go far enough. Stutsman said she doesn’t want to tweak the Road Performance Standards a lot because they have accomplished what the Board wanted. She said they wanted to make sure where the County is having growth and development is coordinated with where the County will put money for infrastructure. She said that there are some instances that have arose that she is comfortable with making some exceptions. She cited Stewart Road and Rapid Creek Road where it doesn’t seem like development will have a tremendous impact. She always cautions herself because when the Board starts tweaking, they will soon have problems. Davidson said that what Stutsman is referring to is similar to why they have concerns to raising the threshold on chip seal roads above 1,000. He said by raising the threshold the County brings in roads they may like to bring in, but then there are also some roads that they may not want to bring in due to their severe geometry. He added that the exceptions are a way to allow growth without affecting every road in the County.

Thompson asked if Davidson is suggesting that they name those roads the Board is interested in and say they are exempted from the Road Performance Standards. Stutsman said they would have some parameters about what exceptions are. Davidson said if the Board adopts an exemption like a dead-end road less than one mile, they would bring in Stewart Road, but they would also bring in any other dead-end road less than a mile in length with a chip seal surface. Thompson clarified that the Board wouldn’t just say Stewart Road and no others. Stutsman asked if they even could do that. Planning and Zoning Administrator Dvorak said that he personally has an issue as to why they’re changing anything at all. He added that in reality if the Board starts identifying those roads, then people who are living out there wonder why the Board would change all the laws to help only 2 families. He said that he wants to avoid that perception because that is what they are talking about doing today. He said he doesn’t want the perception that the Board changed the ordinance because somebody complained about their property. Dvorak said the best use for the County is the way it is now. He said that changing the thresholds scares them a lot more than coming up with 2 roads. He said they can live with making the exemptions they have talked about, although they don’t encourage it. Neuzil asked him to explain the word scare. He asked why the County has a threshold of 994 vehicles, if it is because it’s not safe. Dvorak said when they originally did the study they established numbers based on averages and criteria. He said there was more detail to it than that, but simply that was it. Neuzil again asked if the roads aren’t safe or if it is to stop development. Stutsman said it is to manage development. Neuzil asked if they are managing development because the roads aren’t safe. Davidson said that the notion of safety is a big factor. Neuzil said he is trying to get at the point that the issue is safety. Davidson said that with bringing the criteria the Board is talking about in, it’s not possible to be precise. He said that they had given the Board their best recommendation that 1,000 vehicles is an appropriate threshold. He said it doesn’t go from a small safety concern to a tremendous safety concern by going one vehicle over the threshold. Neuzil said his point is that Johnson County has roads that have 2,500 on a chip seal road that Johnson County continues not to put on the 5-Year Road Plan. He asked if the roads aren’t safe in those circumstances. He commented that it’s very inconsistent in Johnson County to fix roads when under the Board’s current plan, other roads seem to be even more unsafe than others.

Dvorak said when they set the standards, they looked at these individuals roads to examine road alignments, vertical curves, accident rates and lands that were zoned. He said it wasn’t just strictly the number of vehicle trips per day. Dvorak said that he lives on Lake Manor Road. He said that people could argue that it is a very safe road, but he disagrees. He said it goes back to accident rates. He said that is something they can discuss with the Board. He said that these criteria were what the Board at that time chose to go with. Davidson said they did a case study of 6 or 8 different types of roads in detail. He said they found that there is a relationship between traffic volume and collision rate. Davidson said they had 2 public hearings, one in Swisher and one in Solon. He said at the hearing in Solon, all the Sugar Bottom Road people attended and had opinions on both sides of the issue, allowing or restricting development. He said they indicated to people who had asked what the crash rates were, which from the information they had was 6. He said there were 2 gentleman who lived in different parts of Sugar Bottom Road who said that they had pulled 6 people out of the ditch that weren’t reported collisions. He said another gentleman said the same thing. He said they came to the conclusion that there was in fact a relationship between traffic volume on the chip seal roads and safety.

Neuzil said it seems to him that they are talking about roads that have 2,419. He said there are many roads that go past the 994. He listed roads that have traffic counts of 1,360, 1,000, 1,351, 1,282, 1,510 and yet the County isn’t fixing those roads. He asked if 994 is somehow the break point of what is safe and not as safe, than why aren’t those roads at the top of the list to be fixed. He said he is trying to come up with some sort of consistency. He said he isn’t suggesting some giant number as a threshold. Neuzil said he could argue that if the County is going to have a road with 2,419 and the Board isn’t willing to put it on the 5-Year Road Plan, then that could be the threshold. He said that wouldn’t fly, but he also doesn’t like the idea of picking specific roads. It doesn’t seem like a good consistent policy for Johnson County, Neuzil said. He would argue that if a road is within a certain distance of a city or if it is on a dead-end road, those seem more consistent for changing policy. Davidson said the Board has the ability to do that. Harney asked if there is a method to allow infill in places like Stewart Road that would increase traffic counts, but then lower the speed limit to a certain level that would allow for X number of vehicles per day. Thompson said the speed limit is already low on Stewart Road. Harney asked if it could be dropped to 25. Thompson said there aren’t many people driving fast on Stewart Road. She replied to Neuzil that there is more than a question of safety involved. She said Stewart Road is a good example because there are a lot of subdivisions with a lot of people, there are no shoulders and it is where people walk. She said there are conflicting uses because people use it as a suburban sidewalk road and it’s not. She said that the road is also chip seal so in the spring it’s embargoed, and garbage trucks aren’t going to be able to get in. She said a lot of people on the road will have trouble working together to get that worked out. She said the subdivisions past Lake View don’t have 2 entrances so they will have to carry their garbage to Dubuque Street to get it picked up. She said when there are all these families, it’s hard to work out. She said it has also reached a point where the road is pretty stable, it doesn’t have to be repaired every year and the area is almost built out, so people are used to more houses being built so they won’t complain too much. She said it’s also in the infill area. She said she doesn’t see many problems with the Road Performance Standards, but the problem she does see is the infill because the 2 policies conflict. She said the Board has said they want to infill close to Iowa City, but there are those roads that meet infill criteria that are close to Iowa City, but don’t meet the Road Performance Standards.

Neuzil said that goes back to the idea of changing the Road Performance Standards to say if the property is within a mile of the City or dead-end road, it’s exempt. He asked if there is support on the Board to say they would allow for those to be a consistent exemption because in the Land Use Plan it says that they want to grow contiguous to a city. He said the Board can argue that a dead-end road can’t grow much more. He said the Board could take that to the constituents and say there is a reasoning why the Board chose to do this. Stutsman said she first wants to see what the impact of a mile will be. Thompson commented that he had said both one mile and 1,000 feet, which will have different impacts. Neuzil asked what in the Land Use Plan is defined as contiguous to a city. Stutsman said it is 2 miles. Thompson said it’s a designated growth area. Davidson said he didn’t know if there is a true definition, but obviously it needs to be contiguous. Harney said contiguous to his is butting up to current growth, so the whole fringe area wouldn’t count. Davidson said that growth areas are very specifically defined around the cities and there are areas within a mile of Iowa City that aren’t in the growth areas. Thompson said there are growth areas that are defined in the plan. Stutsman said she still wants to see what’s in the growth area because she doesn’t want any surprises. Davidson said the growth area runs right through Steve Lacina’s farm, so it’s 500 feet from the growth area in that part, so if the Board goes another mile beyond that it will be 50 years before the area is take into Iowa City. Neuzil said that is probably too big.

Thompson said she would like to see a combination of standards if the Board decides to do this. She said she would like to include the build out factor. She said she would like to see roads exempted only if they’re mostly built out so the Board is not opening up new areas, only filling in areas they have already designated they want to have infill. Neuzil said he doesn’t disagree, but asked if that sends a message that these are actually used as restricting development. He said that no one wants to say that the Road Performance Standards restrict development. Davidson said it does if the Board doesn’t rebuild the road. Thompson said the criteria she would look for is a dead-end or otherwise unlikely to be paved road. Stutsman said she again wants to know how many dead-ends or if there needs to be length limits put in place. She asked if there are any dead-end roads that are 2 miles long. County Engineer Mike Gardner said Scales Bend Road and Lake Manor Road are both less than 2 miles long. Thomson said the other factor she would like to see is a build out factor as well as being in a designated infill area. She said then she would include either the road being dead-end or being within 1,000 feet of a paved road. Stutsman asked Thompson about the exemption for being contiguous to a city. Thompson said she is calling that an infill area, but she will have to hear what Davidson says about what the map is. Neuzil said he has always wanted to know what the means, if it means butting up to or if there is some buffer. Davidson replied that infill typically means that the County has a built out area, but there are some spots where additional units can be added. He said that’s the definition of the word infill. He asked the Board if the infill is related to their villages policy where they would infill existing villages, like Morrison or Frytown. Dvorak said they looked at that in a different light. He said that first they looked at places where there was proposed development. He said that then they looked within a radius of that to determine what the vacancy rates were and if it exceeded a certain point, then the County encourages infill of those vacant lots or zonings before adding more development to that area. He said it’s a little different in the rural concept than in the city concept.

Neuzil asked if the Board could give direction to the staff to study what the outcomes of the different exemptions would be. Stutsman asked if they are considering an exemption for 1,000 feet from any paved road in the County. Dvorak said that is pretty much what they use for this criteria now, they use 2 paved roads with traffic count criteria in the middle. He said it wouldn’t be too difficult to use a paved road as criteria to that. Davidson said if the Board adopted the criteria that they would allow development unlimited, regardless of traffic count on any chip seal road for which the entrance of the development is within 1,000 feet of a paved road, then pretty much every chip seal road in the County has that first 1,000 feet exempted. Thompson said that is why she thinks the Board needs more than one criteria. Neuzil said this would help infill the areas they want to grow. Stutsman replied that it would help spread growth all over the County. Thompson said the Board doesn’t necessarily want to fill in the first 1,000 feet of every chip seal road. Neuzil said no, but the Land Use Plan says the County grows in areas that are contiguous to a city, that are in a village and are in the North Corridor. He added that the Plan doesn’t say the County grows where ever it wants. He said that there’s lots of good roads to the south, but the Board doesn’t want development down there. Dvorak said the Board would have to change that portion of the ordinance then to qualify by saying that. He said that one time when the Board had discussed this, the main criteria was zoned land. He said he knows both the people that have talked to the Board have properties that are currently zoned. He said that it was brought that up as one of the criteria. Harney said that is one of the issues he has because the land is zoned out there, but the owners are not allowed to do anything with it. Davidson said it would be existing zoned property within 1,000 feet.

Neuzil said he is just hoping for the staff to throw ideas out to see what the Board could do. Davidson asked if existing zoned property within 1,000 feet of a paved road is enough of a qualifier to satisfy Thompson’s concerns. Stutsman asked if any paved road would include Highway 1. Gardner said the idea behind that is currently the staff must evaluate the 2 nearest paved roads, so the idea behind this is that for development within 1,000 feet the majority of the traffic is going to that paved road. He said that he has difficulty justifying that at different distances. Stutsman clarified they are talking about already zoned property within 1,000 feet of a paved road. She asked if they are talking about a dead-end road as well if it doesn’t have a length over 1,000 feet. Davidson said 1,000 feet is pretty short. Dvorak suggested a mile, but commented that it’s an arbitrary number. Neuzil said it will be interesting to see what roads will be involved in this. Davidson said the intention is that Stewart Road will be included in that. He said he assumes the Board is still talking about existing zoned properties. Lehman said that the property has to start out being zoned and then if it falls on a dead-end road it could be exempt. Davidson said through the Board’s legislative process they can decide to zone something and make it existing zoned property if they wish.

Neuzil said it would be interesting to see which of the roads fall under these criteria. Davidson said that is what the staff had tried to do with the table on raising the threshold. Thompson said the staff hadn’t told the Board how long a stretch they are looking at. She said she is thinking of Linder Road, which the Board probably isn’t going to pave. Davidson said Linder Road couldn’t be brought up to design standards. Neuzil said they could, but they would have to tear down a lot of nice houses and trees. Thompson said that people seem to make it work for themselves and it still has some developmental properties. Dvorak said that it is all zoned residential. Thompson said it wouldn’t meet the 1,000 feet. Dvorak replied that both ends could meet the 1,000 feet or whatever the Board chose. Davidson said that Linder Road is at 920. Harney asked hypothetically if the exemption would still apply if someone had a property within 1,000 feet of the paved roadway and it’s X number of acres that they can build on and they are required to have another exit that may be further down. Davidson said the Board would have to be specific about that by saying all entrances or an entrance. Lehman asked if it just starts at 1,000 feet and goes out another half mile will the Board consider it. He asked if it will have to start within the first 1,000 feet. Davidson said if the Board says that a development must have an entrance within 1,000 feet, then if there’s 3 more entrances further out, the property would still be included. Dvorak said with the knowledge that most people are going to use the exit closest to a paved road anyway. Harney said what he is getting at is the Board requires that second entrance for fire purposes. Davidson said the Board could make it more restrictive by saying all entrances must be within 1,000 feet if they felt it is appropriate.

Stutsman said there are a couple of criteria on the table. She asked if the Board wants Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell to start drafting language for an ordinance change or first see the impact of the change. Thompson said she’d like to see the map. Davidson said the County’s inventory of existing zoned residential property on an oil road, 1,000 feet from a paved road, will be a hard thing to research. He said the cul-de-sacs less than a mile in length should be easy. Neuzil said that the Board is asking staff to study 2 potential proposals, one to study the impact of changing the ordinance to allow 1,000 feet from pavement in a zoned residential area and 2, to study the impact of the Road Performance Standard Ordinance on a dead-end road less than one mile. Dvorak agreed. Thompson said she would still like an infill factor in the scenarios because she doesn’t want to open up any new areas with these changes. Harney said this is coming up because it’s infill from things that have already been zoned. Thompson asked Planning & Zoning if they know what’s already mostly built-out. Dvorak said they have that information. Davidson said he is trying to think of another chip seal road of less than a mile in length. He said there are not a lot of those, they may only come up with one or 2 others. Swartzendruber asked if they are looking at dead end roads or just Rapid Creek. Dvorak replied that they are looking at every road. Neuzil asked if Rapid Creek will fall into the 1,000 feet from pavement exception. Stutsman said if there are properties already zoned residential further out on Rapid Creek, then that wouldn’t be exempted. Davidson asked if the Board is proposing to take in everything that’s within the first mile. He said that is a lot more road then. Thompson said she thought the Board said the first 1,000 feet. Harney said 1,000 feet from the first entrance. Davidson said if the Board decided to take the first mile of each chip seal road, then something like Rapid Creek would generate a lot of traffic out beyond that. Harney said the first main entrance should be within 1,000 feet and if another one is required later, that wouldn’t count. Neuzil said his last item is to upgrade the threshold to 3 or 4,000 cars, but he said he didn’t think anyone would go with that. Stutsman said she didn’t think so and Harney agreed. Neuzil said for now, they could look at those 2 scenarios and see how if that opens things.

Lehman asked if this will apply to gravel roads like Meyer Avenue, which joins a growth area and the city. Stutsman said the property she is thinking about on that road is within 1,000 feet of a paved road. Neuzil said it seems to him that there are certain gravel roads that are basically going to be in the city. Davidson said there is a development plan for Meyer Avenue in the City’s Southwest District Plan. Neuzil said the only problem with including gravel roads is the Board then gets into the Deer Creek Road problem. He said that again goes back to the safety factor of suddenly allowing 1,500 to 2,000 cars on a gravel road. Harney said they still need the counts for the gravel roads. Dvorak said planners gage how ordinances work by the amount of complaints they receive. He said other than a couple people in the last 2.5 years, the Road Performance Standards Ordinance have worked quite well. He said now the Board is looking at tweaking the ordinance to support these exemptions, but he personally hasn’t heard anything from anybody regarding gravel roads, be it complaints, concerns, or people wanting more development on gravel roads. He said if the Board doesn’t disagree, their main emphasis should be on seal coat roads because he doesn’t want to spend a lot of time on something when there isn’t a problem with it. He said staff has created 307 lots of 803 acres. He said in 2 years that shows that the County hasn’t stopped development, only encouraged it in certain areas. He said that this year his department issued 120 building permits for new houses totaling $125 million. He added that there are obviously lots available.

Bill Wittig said that Thompson is looking for some fringe area compliance and if they simply look at areas in the fringe area, that might solve the infill problem. He said that then concentrates the growth in the zoned areas 1,000 feet off of the highway, in the Iowa City fringe area, and also allows for some areas of growth that are now not able to grow. He said on the 1,000 feet off of a paved road, when the Board looks at what entrances that includes they could state that it is 1,000 feet to a primary entrance. He said he agrees with Dvorak that if there are 2 or 3 entrances into a subdivision, the people are going to find the one that is closest to the paved road. Wittig said he understands the statistics that are available that tell the Board how many lots are available, but he doesn’t agree with them. Wittig said that those lots aren’t available to buy and there is nothing that states how many lots are for sale. He said it states how many vacate lots are available, but it doesn’t tell how many are available to buy. He said there are a lot of vacant lots that may not be built on for another 5 or 10 years and are certainly not going to sell. He said when Wescott Heights went to the County, it sold out in 2 years. He said if there are this many lots out there available to buy, then why would all of those people go to Wescott Heights. He said Wescott Heights is a premier location and one of the better subdivision in the community, but it also shows a high demand and need for a subdivision. He said if the Board looks at allowing some of the existing zoned land that would be infill within the fringe area, the Board would be allowing some development of land that’s close to the cities and also is close to employment centers, especially the Highway 1 area. He added that there are some huge employment centers growing there, but the housing is being left off to the side. He said both NCS and ACT have doubled in size and nobody knows how many more jobs they will employ. He said it’s common sense to look at how Johnson County and the City of Iowa City have acknowledged the growth area out there. He ask if it wouldn’t make sense to look at the fringe area on infill to allow those exceptions. Harney said Wittig is correct because the Board has discussed the number of lots that are buildable. He said some of the lots are not buildable and some are owned by people who don’t want a neighbor. Lehman said his Wescott Heights example points that out.

MMS Consultants Representative Glen Meisner asked what build out means. He asked if it means lots that are already platted or if it means zoned land along the roads. Dvorak said it means both. Meisner said then it looks to him that the build out ADT for some of these roads talked about are generating some pretty high numbers. He said the land along these roads is already zoned, but not platted. He said he thought they should then probably be increasing the build out ADT number to about 1,500 vehicles per day rather than 1,000. Meisner said he feels that number is too low. He said he and Doug Frederick talked a couple years ago about the Road Performance Standards and they both felt these numbers were too low. He added that they aren’t the County’s experts, but they have both been County Engineers in Johnson County. He reiterated that they both felt that 1,000 is too low a number. He said that it appears to him with the build out that’s already zoned that the County could take those numbers up to 1,500 and still be fairly safe. Neuzil said Meisner is suggesting moving the thresholds up to 1,500. Meisner said that because the County has land that’s zoned and they are talking about zoned land. He said essentially these roads anywhere from the top down to Sugar Bottom, there are zoned lands and a build out that would take the vehicles per day to 1,500 they would be fine with that number. He said if there are some roads that are very curvilinear there could be some safety problems, but there are certainly some roads with seal coat that are very capable of handling that type of traffic. He said it’s proven when looking at Sugar Bottom and Scales Bend Road where the County is already at 2,400 vehicles.

Meisner asked what Linn County’s measurement restraint is. Dvorak said that he thinks it’s a quarter mile, but that the developer also has to pave the road if it isn’t already paved. He said if there is a development past where the pavement stopped, the developer has to pave the portion in the difference. He added that he isn’t 100% certain though. Thompson asked if the road surface would change there then. Neuzil asked if they would have cement turn into chip seal. Lehman said the County has had discussions on requiring the developers to pave roads regarding liability. He said they had talked about gravel to chip seal, but chip seal to pavement might be different. Stutsman said that Sand Road was that way. Meisner said he could look at Linn County to see what they have, but Dvorak might be correct on who would have to pay for it. Stutsman asked the Board if that is something they would want to consider. Dvorak said it may be a discussion for another day. Thompson said the County Engineer generally recommends against that because of the danger in changing surfaces. Stutsman asked about chip seal to pavement. Gardner said rock is his main concern. Stutsman said it could get to the point where they would have a whole road. Meisner said he thought that was the intent of the ordinance that the County already has. He said if somebody wants to regrade it and pave it to County standards that is acceptable. Dvorak said that is in the Land Use Plan, so the Board can already require that. Meisner said the problem is the Board doesn’t want them to pave the existing roadbed because the shoulders and the slopes are out of conformance.

Meisner said when he was looking at the 1,000 feet exemption, he thought it could probably be a little bit longer like a quarter or a half mile. Neuzil asked if that is something the Board would like staff to look at and see what roads would be included in a quarter mile compared to 1,000 feet. He asked what the difference is between 1,000 feet and a quarter mile. Thompson said it’s 320 feet. Neuzil said that isn’t a big deal. Meisner said that reason he brought it up is that if a person owns 40 acres on one side of a road, the first 40 acres in from a paved road is a quarter mile. He said that’s why he is looking at a half mile as being more realistic. He said he is saying that if one person owns 40 acres, then the next person doesn’t have that possibility. Meisner said from what he’s read, the Board is considering exempting dead-end roads of one mile or less. Dvorak said they’re considering a chip seal road of one mile or less. Meisner suggested that there may be some dead-end roads of more than a mile in length and he thought that the first mile of those could be included as well. He said the Board could look at the first mile of those 2 or 3 mile dead-end roads, rather then throwing them out.

Dvorak asked if there is anything additional that the Board would like the staff to look at after Meisner’s comments. Harney said it doesn’t hurt to look. Dvorak said it does in terms of time because by changing the distances, they add more roads. Neuzil said it could make it easier on Planning & Zoning’s end because instead of figuring out the length of every dead-end road, they could just look at every dead-end road. He said staff could just look at all dead-end roads with existing residential zoning within 1,000 feet to a quarter mile from the existing hard surface road. He said it would make it more consistent with the other exemption. Thompson said the 1,000 feet exemption would apply to a dead-end road as well as a road that isn’t. Neuzil said the direction that the Board had given staff says only dead-end roads of a mile or less, but this would be all dead-end roads. Thompson said the Board has also said that the first 1,000 feet of chip seal paved road and a dead-end road would meet those criteria if it is longer than 1 mile. Neuzil said point well taken. Stutsman asked if the Board will keep moving the Boundary out; once the first 1,000 feet is built on, then does it keep going out. Dvorak said if somebody paved it, it would, which staff wouldn’t have a major problem with. Davidson said hypothetically if North Liberty took the first 1,000 feet of Scales Bend Road into the City limits and became a paved City street, it would start from that point. Lehman said there could be a case where the first person who owns the 40 acres is fine, but the next person will have to pave along that first 40 acres to get to the next hard surface road. Dvorak asked how Lake Manor or Sandy Beach Road would apply to these exemptions because they are already up to 1,500. Gardner said that road doesn’t connect to a paved road. Dvorak said Sandy Beach Road does. Gardner said that the first 1,000 feet of Sandy Beach Road coming off of Curtis Ridge Road. Dvorak said he thought what Neuzil had said is on a seal coat road 1,000 feet if it’s a dead-end road. Gardner said if the Board required the developer to pave the road, then the 1,000 feet would be extended.

Meisner said he agrees with Wittig about the number of lots available in the County. He said there are a lot of lots that are platted, but he considers some of them unbuildable. He said he also thinks that at one time they had determined that some of the unbuildable outlots were being counted too. Dvorak said he didn’t calculate outlots.

Sue Norris addressed the Board regarding Rapid Creek Road. She said she would like to read a short paragraph from the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area Agreement. She said it says properties zoned for classification, which is inconsistent with this agreement at the time this agreement is executed shall retain the rights under that zoning, unless and until such zoning is changed through due process. She said she feels like that is a grandfather clause and she wants to see what the Board thinks about it. Dvorak said that is in Iowa City’s Fringe Area Agreement and the paragraph references the paragraph before or after, which says any new stuff has to come in RS3. Chappell said that the paragraph is taken out of context, so he can’t respond to a grandfather clause, meaning the person can do whatever they want and get by without following the Road Performance Standards. Dvorak said the only relevance to that paragraph is to allow existing zoning to keep their rights for development. He said any other zoned land would have to come in at a RS3. Norris said that this is already zoned land. She said she also has a question about land contingent to the city, the property that she is speaking of and has already been developed was contingent to the City. She said that 2/3 of it is done already. She asked if the last 1/3 of the zoned land would be considered contingent to the City then as well because it’s a part of the same land that was zoned at the same time. Neuzil said they could look at her scenario and direction could be given to the staff to look into it. Norris said the other thing she wanted to reiterate is what Wittig and Meisner said about the entrances. She said they measured their land and it is approximately 700 feet from Highway 1 to the beginning of the property. She said they could obviously put another entrance within 1,000 feet, but it wouldn’t be common sense. She said she hopes the Board would word that so that there would be a primary entrance, a secondary entrance and the primary entrance would have to be within that 1,000 feet. Lehman asked if it is 700 feet to the beginning of the property, and said she isn’t saying that it may not be a proper place for a driveway. Norris said that their driveway is there now, so an entrance could be put their quite easily, which might be the main entrance that people would use because it is the closest to the road, but she didn’t want to get into a game of putting another entrance there when it doesn’t make sense. Harney asked how far away the current driveway is. Norris said that is what’s 700 feet from Highway one. She said they measured from the stop sign to their mailbox, which is 700 feet. Norris said dead-end roads are different than subdivisions as far as not having sidewalks for people to walk, but she thinks that people who tend to do that are walking in their own subdivision, not on Rapid Creek Road itself.

Swartzendruber said that when he was doing the analysis, he took into account the zoned ground off these roads and went to a quarter mile to a quarter section to begin with. He said if he went any further than that he would run into flood plain, and access issues with a 1,000 foot cul-de-sac. He said if he were to take all of the zoned grand that is beyond that, the numbers will be higher than these build outs. Thompson clarified that Swartzendruber thought they should stick to the 1,000 feet and Neuzil added or the quarter mile. Swartzendruber said that a quarter mile is what he used when he did the build outs. Neuzil asked if the Board approves of a quarter mile rather than 1,000 feet. Swartzendruber said that by using the clustered subdivision design and factoring in a 3 acre minimum for health department requirements, it’s going to achieve quite a few more lots. Harney asked if they went to a quarter mile if the cul-de-sac requirement of 1,000 feet would be changed. Dvorak said those are 2 separate things. He said the staff would really discourage changing that. Harney asked the Board if a quarter mile is sufficient. Neuzil said he thinks it sounds easier because it’s 40 acres. Stutsman clarified that the staff will figure out how big of an impact these changes would have. She said after the Board reviews that, then they will direct the County Attorney’s Office to start drawing up ordinances. Dvorak said yes, if there is 3 to pass it. Harney asked what the timeline will be. Dvorak said he can’t fit this in right now. He said he will have to sit down with Swartzendruber to find out how much they have done and how much more they have to do. He will then have to sit down with Gardner to figure out the roads. He said he can’t commit right now, but he will guestimate a month. Thompson said Dvorak asked a good question, whether or not there are 3 Board members who want to keep the ordinance as is because if there are, the staff shouldn’t do all of this work. Stutsman and Harney said they were interested at taking a look.

Adjourned at 3:12 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary