• Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak and Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore: Proposed Amendments to the 1998 Land Use Plan

• Discussion from the Public

Chairperson Harney called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 11:15 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore noted that Secondary Roads recently improved a couple of roads where the original phasing idea would not have allowed development to occur, which did not maximize the resources efficiently in building the roads. He pointed out that in this version of the amendments to the North Corridor plan, they included areas from 180th Street down from Solon to Mehaffey Bridge Road adding 1/4 mile south and east of those 2 roads. He said it would then allow development to occur within that 1/4 mile in zoned ground. He said that the 1/4 mile restriction is based off the ordinance requiring a single access cul-de-sac to not exceed 1,000 feet. Regarding Newport Road, they added the same 1,000 feet restriction because Newport is in Secondary Roads’ 5-Year Road Plan. He added that they also included Prairie Du Chien north of Iowa City to Newport Road and east to Highway 1 in this phase, where it was exempted before. He said that it had been expected because of previously zoned ground, its proximity to Iowa City, the fringe area agreement and all the development the County had been doing. He commented that those are the changes they made for the first option.

Moore said that Option II began at a work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission. He added that this is a 3 phase option, which includes the same changes as before, but they also broke Option I’s Phase II into two parts for Option II, creating Phase II and Phase III. He said that Phase I is now an immediate growth area, Phase II is next and then Phase III is reserved for agricultural use. Neuzil asked what the requirements are for Phase II and III. Moore replied that it hasn’t been decided yet. He said that if the Board decided to choose one of these options, staff would come up with language to designate that, but they haven’t been instructed to do that. Neuzil said if the Board phases or not, it would be some kind of infill. Moore replied that they could use infill as a standard that’s identifiable as to when to move onto the next phase. Neuzil commented that all 5 Board members probably have a different idea of what infill is. He said that Sugar Bottom Road would be year 5 in the 5-Year Road Plan, and asked if that’s the case, would Phase II be implemented then. Moore said that to be consistent with what they’ve done, then 1/4 mile on the north end would be included if it’s within 5 years.

Neuzil said that 120th Street in Phase III is a hard surface road and asked if there are any areas zoned residential off that road. Moore replied that there’s just a few spot zoning because the mass 1960’s zonings are south of that area. Neuzil asked if the Board would allow for development on that road since it is a hard surface road. Thompson asked if people with zoned land will still be able to build on it. Moore said that currently the policies will not allow them to, because the area isn’t well developed, it doesn’t have previously zoned ground, and it won’t receive a good staff report. Neuzil asked if it would be allowed to develop if it was already zoned residential and was on a hard surfaced road. Moore responded that they would have to allow it to develop if it met the subdivision requirements. Thompson commented that these plans only apply to rezonings, because the purpose is to direct what areas rezonings can occur in. Stutsman said that even if there was a request that came through, the Board would have discretion because this is not an ordinance, it’s a guide. Neuzil said that the Board has done that. Neuzil said that he’s been against the phasing because the Board doesn’t have a definition of how or when to move from Phase I to Phase II and there will be a great discrepancy amongst the Board. He said that the Board needs to think that through. He added that he also has concerns because based on some of the things the Board has discussed, they’ve made the North Corridor the most restrictive area for growth and development in the entire County. He said that it’s beyond him why that would be treated any differently than any other part of the County. He said the restrictions or guidelines should be for the whole Land Use Plan.

Moore said that frequently since they’ve begun this discussion, he’s felt inadequate that he’s been unable to explain that what Planning and Zoning has put forward to the Board is probably the most pro-development thing they’ve recommended since he’s been here. He added that it’s also very pro-planning. He said that one of the County Engineer’s problem in developing the roads on the 5-Year Road Plan, is that the County has to relocate homes or purchase expensive already zoned and platted ground. Moore said that what happened was previous Boards went in and allowed development before they put the infrastructure in place. He said that this coupled with the ideas they put forth regarding new roads is planning for the future so that they don’t have conflicts with developments already in place. Neuzil said that for those who live in Phase I and want to have growth and development, Moore is right, but for those individuals who bought in the North Corridor who are now in Phase II or III, would very much different with Moore's response regarding growth and development. Moore replied that Planning and Zoning has always felt and everything he’s learned about planning and zoning law is that development is a permitted use of zoned ground. He commented that zoned properties have a higher priority than agricultural properties in Phase II or III. He said he feels that the Board has a responsibility to those people to allow them to use their property as it’s zoned. He said that with the idea of the phasing and upgrading the roads, then that’s going to happen, but they want it to happen in certain areas first before moving into agriculturally zoned areas of the North Corridor.

Stutsman said that the feedback she’s heard from developers is that they want to know what the Board’s plans are even if there are restrictions or limited development. She said the frustration comes when it’s fine one day, but not fine the next day. She said this plan says where the Board is going with growth and development. She said that conveys that message to developers so that they know when they’re looking at property if it has potential or not. Neuzil asked about the developers that have already invested. Thompson replied that if they bought zoned land, they can develop it, but if they bought agricultural, they knew that when they bought it. Neuzil replied that they still bought it in the North Corridor. Moore said that the current North Corridor Plan has a few strong statements about not using zoned agricultural land. He said that the Plan states that they should not rezone agriculturally zoned ground of 30 or more acres with a CSR of 65 or greater. He said that the plan is trying to protect agricultural operations. He said that in Phase I agricultural users are the conflict, but in Phase II or III they’re not. Neuzil said that he’s not talking about the restrictions. He commented that in the past there was an area on a hard surface road on Highway 1, with a poor CSR rating in the middle of timber and the Board got a poor response from the staff as far as allowing the zoning. Moore said that he used the Board’s policies to write that staff report and he used those policies to see whether it met them or not. He said that staff didn’t have a number to use for infill, but the Board decided to rezone it regardless.

Lehman asked why the Board is making it more restrictive. He said that in a way the Board is making it more restrictive because the areas in the southern part of the County have characteristics the Board has adhered too, such as high CSR and gravel roads. He said east or south of Iowa City it’s flat ground with a good system of roads, but it’s obvious up in the North Corridor that there’s nothing that runs straight. He added that it’s difficult to contour in the North Corridor area, meaning farming along the slope of the ground to act as damns for water erosion. He said that any ground in the North Corridor that changes hands isn’t going to be bought by farmers trying to expand their ground, but by developers, which is why the Board needs to give people direction as to where to buy. Lehman said that what Planning and Zoning wanted to do with this plan is send a memo to future members of this Board to be aware of the situation and direct resources into the Phase I area. He added that this also sends a message to the public as to what might happen in these areas. Moore said staff is well aware of what the Board deals with every year for the budget and that the last few year have been difficult. He said one of the things Planning and Zoning has learned is that as the County increases densities, the cost to service those areas will be less than the revenues they generate in tax dollars. He said that is why people are against sprawl development. He said that if they can increase densities to increase tax dollars in an area where the County already has a high rate of service required, then hopefully they’ll be generating more in revenues. He added that then they’ll be able to have the dollars to fix the roads that need it, and expand into the next phases.

Lehman said that with Phase II and III, the farther north, the flatter the ground and straighter the roads. Moore replied that the Board could move all the land west of Highway 1, south of Solon into the Phase I area and keep, what is Phase III, as Phase II. Neuzil said that in looking at the plan put in place by Secondary Roads, if the Board is going to go with a 2 phase system, most of the roads proposed in the Secondary Roads Comprehensive North Corridor Plan are in Phase II. He asked why the Board would choose to update roads if it’s going to be in an area of phasing that isn’t going to be touched, for 10 to 20 years at a minimum. Thompson said that she doesn't think that is true because the plan gets reviewed every 5 years. She said she knows everyone has questions about infill strategies, but if in 5 years developers are saying there’s no land in Phase I, that would tell the Board that they need to open Phase II. She said that the Board would also know by then whether or not there’s roads out there. Neuzil said that in the 5-Year Road Plan, year 5 is in Phase II. Stutsman replied that year 5 is in the future. Neuzil said that's how the Board plans. Stutsman replied that what the Board adopts in this plan will determine what she’s going to put on year 5 of the 5-Year Road Plan. She said that this will guide where she feels resources should be put. Neuzil agreed, but said his point is that the proposal from Secondary Roads will not be done. He explained that if the Board chooses to make Phase II Poplar, Jordan Creek, Sugar Bottom, then why would the Board of Supervisors put those roads on the 5-Year Road Plan. Stutsman said they won’t, they’ll take them off. Thompson said that in 5 years the Board will be able to say that they built these roads and now it’s time to open it up.

Moore said the point Planning and Zoning has been trying to make is that they shouldn’t do the Sugar Bottom Roads any more, they should put the road infrastructure in before they allow development. He added that it would be less costly. Moore said they would prefer to build roads in Phase II before it’s developed. He said this is the preferred method of development; put the infrastructure in, then allow development. Neuzil said that the problem in this County is that there are 20 roads that are already over capacity according to the Road Performance Standards. Moore said that the Board would have to fix them, which is why they’re recommending that the Board increase their densities to increase the tax base. Stutsman asked why the Board should increase the problem by overcrowding 30 roads next year by adding development. Neuzil said that no one is suggesting that. He said the current system doesn’t need this plan because it’s dictated by the Road Performance Standards. He asked why the Board should implement the phases when the system is already working. Moore replied that much of the public and many developers perceive the Road Performance Standards as a way for the County to say no to development. He added that staff saw it as a way to get the Board to commit to fix those roads. He said that when those roads reach the threshold where they can no longer be developed and they’re in a growth area, then the Board should have the responsibility to fix them. He added that the County doesn't have the revenue to do that, so they need to increase the densities where they can to increase the revenues.

Neuzil said that increasing densities helps in clustered subdivisions, but people also want to live in the County where they won't have 40 neighbors next to them. He said there has to be a balance. He said that if the Board makes a policy that won’t allow a house to be built in the County unless there’s 40 or 25 next to it, then they could just live in the City. Stutsman asked why her tax dollars should pay for someone to have a sprawling estate in the County. Neuzil asked where sprawling is occurring in Johnson County, not including the municipalities. Stutsman said that the County doesn’t have sprawl and the reason they don’t is that they’ve committed themselves to a plan. Thompson said that if people want to live on 40 acres they can buy a farm. Lehman said that if these roads are on the first 2 years of the 5-Year Road Plan, the funds have been allocated and the engineering done, whether the plan is reviewed or not, the Board has the backing to approve rezoning in the Poplar area. He said that if the Board has set that there’s a hard surface road in Phase II, then they can move to Phase II to allow for development, but he doesn’t see that happening until things are taken care of in Phase I. Neuzil asked if they should take out Phase II and make it all Phase I. Stutsman said that's an option.

Harney said that the way the phased plans are now, they’re discriminating against people in the area along Highway 1, not going in the 1,200 feet that they are on 180th. Moore said that the Board hadn’t mentioned that before and added that it isn’t zoned yet. He said that with the lines drawn in Phase II of option 2, 97% of that ground is agriculturally used and zoned. He added that if the Board can find 3 votes to move those lines, staff will move them. Stutsman asked what that means as far as additional developments. Lehman asked if they’d rather have an application that monitors it. He asked if the Board wants to take the extra step and make it Phase I for 1,200 feet. Stutsman said it goes back to the infill question if there’s still plenty of available lots in the Phase I area. She said that she is satisfied with the plan as it is because it’s reasonable, it shows good planning and it’s workable. She said that she’s ready to adopt what they have currently.

Harney said that one of the issues he takes with Stutsman is that the Board would go ahead and do the infill in Phase I. He heard her say that she would not include any of the Phase II roads in the 5-Year Road Plan. He said that to him the Board is creating more problems because the school buses have no routes to get to Solon. He said that when Secondary Roads was laying out the plan, that’s what they had in mind. He said that if the County is going to grow, they need to have the traffic patterns on roads that will carry the people. Moore said they need to put the infrastructure in first, before they allow development. Lehman said that Stutsman isn’t saying never update roads, only commenting about the timing. Stutsman agreed. Lehman said that the Board can’t spread resources too thin, they have to maximize what they have. Stutsman said that if the Board adopts the phases and someone in Phase I comes in and asks to develop a 300 house subdivision on Quincy, then the Board says OK because it is in Phase I. She said then they've got the cart before the horse again and now the Board has to put in a road they otherwise wouldn’t have done. Neuzil said that the Board never would have allowed that because of the Road Performance Standards and Stutsman agreed. Moore said that the Road Performance Standards would control the density up to the 200 to 300 thresholds, but anything that came in with a request to rezone as long as they met everything else, would get a favorable staff report. Moore said that Lehman had a good idea that if they kept only Phase I and II, if there is a road that the Road Performance Standards says within 2 years they allow development to occur, that allows the Board to justify development.

Thompson said that the 5-Year Road Plan doesn’t have these roads included currently. Stutsman said that they were future projects. She said that the Board is getting confused about what they asked for in a feasibility study and the 5-Year Road Plan. She said that they’re equating what was proposed on the feasibility study with the future 5-Year Road Plan, but they’re 2 different things. Harney said they need to mesh. Stutsman agreed that eventually they do. Neuzil explained that the first section of Sugar Bottom is on year 5 so why would they do one section of Sugar Bottom, and not keep improving the rest of the road in the next years. He said that Phase II has Sugar Bottom, which is on the 5-Year Road Plan for year 5. He asked why they would have Sugar Bottom in Phase II, which is an area where they don’t want growth and development to occur until Phase I is done, on the 5-Year Road plan. Stutsman said that if the Board adopts this plan she would take Sugar Bottom off of the 5-Year Road Plan. Lehman added that they could move Sugar Bottom to the future projects list. Neuzil asked why they would have the Phase II area at all if this is an area Secondary Roads wants to include in the 5-Year Road Plan. Stutsman said that she sees the 5-Year Road Plan as dealing with the roads in Phase 1. She said that future projects is dealing with Phase II, and Phase III isn’t even on the radar screen. Thompson said that makes sense because they’re proposing to change what the major roads will be in the area and the Board hasn’t agreed on that and needs to discuss it further. Neuzil said that they know if Sugar Bottom is year 5 then it will be a major road. Stutsman said that they’re taking it off the 5-Year Road Plan. Neuzil said that as far as he’s concerned if Phase II is set as is, then Sugar Bottom’s off. Stutsman said that this is the type of planning they’ll do so that this plan is in synch with the 5-Year Road Plan.

Neuzil asked staff how many years they’re estimating it will take to infill Phase I. Moore said that based on new housing permits, they're 20 years or more out. Stutsman said that the Board always has this discussion about infill and how many lots are available, so they need to track the number of lots and if there’s a consistent pattern of always being 1,200 lots available then that tells her there isn’t a lot of changes. She said that if the number changes, then maybe there really isn’t availability up there. Neuzil asked if they should do that before talking about phasing. Dvorak said that they have done that and shared that with the Board. He said they just received an update yesterday on the whole County. He said that the numbers aren’t changing because they’re seeing a 28% vacancy rate when 6 months ago it was a 29% vacancy rate. Thompson asked how to interpret that number and if it’s always the same 28% that those lots aren’t for sale or if there’s always 28% available to buy. Moore replied that some of those lots are infilling, but they’re also creating more subdivisions, so the County holds a pretty steady figure. He added that the market demand for land and housing also plays a part because development will always seek the cheapest land to maximize profits. He said that the cheapest land available in the County is farmland, while the most expensive land is already zoned. He said that when a developer offers a farmer $5,000 for land that’s only worth $2 or $3,000, it’s pretty hard to resist. Dvorak said that realtors can’t unload land along Highway 382, which has been zoned since the ‘80s, but the people who own the unzoned land across the road want $10,000 per acre for it because they think it’s more marketable. He said that Planning and Zoning won’t support the rezoning if there’s land to build.

Neuzil again asked why the Board would consider phases when they don’t have a definition of how to get from Phase I to Phase II. Stutsman said that part of it goes back to the Board’s role in land use planning. She asked if the Board's role is to make sure there’s an abundance of cheap affordable acres in the County or to manage the resources. She said that’s part of the question that needs to be asked. Stutsman said that she doesn’t feel that she responsible for everybody who wants to buy land in Johnson County to have something available in their price range. Lehman said that he doesn't see this plan as being any more restrictive than what they have already. He said he sees this similar to the Land Use Plan as far as adapting to that plan and developing their own interpretations. He added that he sees this as a memo to Board members in the future to remind them about the resources needed to update these roads. Moore agreed with Lehman because the County has to maximize their resources. He said that there were over 4,000 more rural residents as of 2000 than there were in 1990. He said that is more demand on the County’s budget. Neuzil said it’s a bigger tax base. Moore said that in the last 5 years the County has been doing a good job managing growth and increasing density, but the idea in front of the Board maximizes that more.

Harney said that he understands what Moore is saying, but at the same time the growth is already being controlled by the road counts. He said that if the Board takes off any future roads, even if they’re not set in stone and turning their backs on Secondary Roads so there’s no growth, then why change the Plan because it’s already controlled through the Road Performance Standards. Neuzil said that the Secondary Roads Plan is irrelevant as far as their work on the North Corridor if the Board chooses to do Phase II because the Board will not get to Phase II for at least 20 years. Moore said that infill at this rate will take 20 years, but the Board can make the transition sooner. He said that he thinks this plan and the Secondary Roads Feasibility Study go hand in hand. He said Planning and Zoning wants to put the roads in first. Stutsman said the Feasibility Study is not the 5-Year Road Plan, although it may be some day. She said the Board simply asked Secondary Roads if they wanted to improve the roads in the North Corridor, how to go about doing it. Harney said that they asked them to do it in conjunction with Planning and Zoning so the Board could plan for the future. Stutsman said that the Board hasn’t adopted it as a 5-Year Road Plan yet. Thompson said that the portion of Sugar Bottom that’s the in 5-Year Road Plan will be the same whether or not the Feasibility Study is adopted. Neuzil said that when they start a section of road, they do the next section and the next. Thompson said that at this point they haven’t decided what the next section will be. Neuzil said that if the Board chooses to implement the phases, then Sugar Bottom needs to be removed because there are other needs out there. He said that there’s probably a lot of people that would love to hear that because they don’t want any more development in the North Corridor.

Moore said that if the Board asked staff about the Feasibility Study Secondary Roads completed, they would tell the Board that it would be favorable to incorporate into their planning. He called it an important tool to manage growth. He said that if the County is going to allow growth in any part of the North Corridor, they have to plan for the roads. He said the best way to do that is to put the roads in before development. He said that some residents have concerns about the new roads’ alignments, but the Board has talked with staff about moving them to have less impact on the landowners. He said staff really likes the concept because it’s a growth area and in order to maximize tax dollars they need to put infrastructure before the development. Neuzil asked if Moore thought development should then occur once the roads are in place. Moore said yes. Neuzil asked why those roads are in Phase II then. Thompson replied that it would take until then for the roads to get built. Neuzil asked if it would take 20 year for those roads. Moore replied that it wouldn’t. Neuzil then asked why it’s in Phase II if they don’t want development to occur for 20 years. Moore replied that they didn’t want the development to occur before the roads are built. Neuzil said that if the County builds the roads in 10 years, then why wouldn’t they want development to occur for at least 20 years. Thompson said that they will review the plan every 5 years, so if in 5 years the County has built roads, then they can open Phase II. Neuzil asked why they don’t do it now. Thompson replied that they don't know that they’re going to build those roads because they have a long way to go. Lehman said that it’s not in the next 2 years for one thing and they’re looking at reviewing it at year 5. Lehman said that if Sugar Bottom gets built, and the North Corridor Plan isn't reviewed, but Sugar Bottom is now a hard surface road, he’s probably going to approve it regardless. He commented that this document isn’t saying that he can’t approve anything. Neuzil asked why the Board has the plan then if they’re not planning on following it. Stutsman said that they are going to follow it. Moore said that by building a road, it would change the philosophy of the plan.

Stutsman said that she wants this plan because the Board wants to tweak the Road Performance Standards to make them work for every situation that comes in. Neuzil disagreed. Stutsman replied that they do because she’s heard talk about raising the Road Performance Standards because they’re too restrictive. Neuzil said they are. Stutsman said part of the problem is that the Board wants a plan that fits every scenario. She said that the Board wants to be able to say yes to everybody that comes in. She said that isn’t what planning is about. She said that she sees this plan as another tool to help her make decisions and this also tells the public what direction the Board is going. She said that otherwise development will dictate the Board instead of the Board dictating development.

Pat Cancilla said he’s sat through all of the meetings and the Board keeps going around in the same circles. He said the Board is not planning. Cancilla said the Board should vote and get it over with so the public knows what is going on and they can get on with their lives. Lehman asked how the Board is hindering their lives. Cancilla replied that there are people who want to know what the Board is doing. He said some are able to attend meetings and pass the word along to others who can't attend. Cancilla said that he’s hearing the same speeches from the Board and it’s time for a vote.

Laurie Tulchin asked why the Board thinks roads are the only infrastructure that needs to be provided to rural residents. She said that's a bad tactic to take because roads are the least of it. She asked why Neuzil thinks the 5-Year Road Plan is something for the Board to follow, while Secondary Roads should be following the Board’s recommendations. She said that the fact that a road in on the 5-Year Road Plan doesn’t mean that it must be built. Neuzil replied that it stems from a lesson learned when the Board took a road off the 5-Year Road Plan and the planning and funding and money put towards that was lost. Tulchin said that road should've come off the 5-Year Road plan a long time ago. Neuzil said that things changed because the Board of Supervisors changed. Tulchin said that the 5-Year Road Plan is up to the Board, not Secondary Roads because they don’t run the County. She said that it’s up to the Board to arrange priorities. Tulchin said Phase I and Phase II are ambiguous because the Board doesn’t know where they’re going to go from there once it’s in place. She asked how the Board is going to supply the new infrastructure for all the people that are going to move in the County. She reiterated that roads are just one portion of the infrastructure and the Board’s job is certainly not done once the roads are built. Neuzil said that in his mind, if they choose to do the phasings, Phase II will not be done for many years down the road. Tulchin replied that it doesn’t make a difference whether the Board implements the phases or not because the Board has an obligation to land that’s already zoned. Tulchin said it doesn't matter to her whether this plan is approved or not because she won’t notice a difference. Neuzil agreed and said why are they messing with something that’s already working.

Lehman said that at the County level roads are infrastructure because they don’t get into things like wastewater districts. Thompson said part of the reason they need further restrictions is because it’s such a popular area. She said that the County has suburbs and whole cities out in the County and they’re close enough together that if one person’s septic system goes bad, the neighbors are affected. She said that if Iowa City starts drawing water out of the North Corridor there will be water shortages. Lehman said that when people live in the North Corridor, they know they have to drive to work and they have to get their groceries in town. Stutsman said that one of the problems that has come up is garbage disposal because the Board embargoes some of the roads, but the people are still generating a lot of garbage. Neuzil said that not all the Board agrees with the embargoes either. Tulchin asked what the Board thinks about response time from the Fire Departments. Lehman said that it would be better on a better road. Tulchin replied that it wouldn’t necessarily be better because there’s more people to service and more fires. Thompson said that the cities might say that a better way to develop these areas is to wait until they’re annexed.

Thompson said if they're going to develop it pays to do it thoughtfully and carefully. Neuzil said that they’re already doing that without this. Stutsman asked why they’re having this discussion then. She’s saying that the Board isn’t doing it. She said that the Board is having lengthy discussions because there’s disagreement about whether or not they’re doing this. Harney said that one disadvantage the County has, is that they don’t have the resources like cities do. Lehman said that if the residents want more infrastructure and bureaucracy, then people’s taxes will go up. Stutsman asked why the Board wants to continue to aggravate it by adding even more houses without any planning. Moore said that Planning and Zoning is planning, that rural planning is different than urban planning and they’ve thought about infrastructure. He said that this Board and past Board’s have decided that most of the infrastructure that services rural development will be kept in private hands. He asked why the County should take over roads, sewer and water lines when the private sector can take care of it themselves. Stutsman said that they’ve done that with parks too by putting in provisions for outlots, telling the development to take care of those areas. Tulchin asked why the developer can’t pay for the road then. Harney agreed. Thompson said that if anyone came to the Board to put in a road, she would consider it. Stutsman said that they would want to build it to their standards and not the County’s standards. Dvorak said that in Linn County the developer builds the road and then develops. He said that is the philosophical difference that they’re debating right now. Dvorak said that he’s suggesting that they fix arterial roads and develop out. Tulchin said that developers paid for Scott Boulevard. Stutsman said that the developers would build it, but they would build it as cheaply as possible and then the County assumes the liability. Thompson said that the Board could require certain characteristics. Stutsman asked if the Board is willing to do that. Thompson said she is. Tulchin said that then the County wouldn't need a 5-Year Road Plan. Neuzil said that the County still has to provide arterial roads.

Thompson asked if Planning and Zoning wrote language for the plan yet. Dvorak replied that they don’t know what the map is yet. Thompson asked if 3 Board members are interested in either Option one or 2. Stutsman said she’s interested in Option 2. Thompson agreed. Neuzil explained that he would like no changes other than to incorporate the North Corridor Plan into the Land Use Plan, which will be discussed this summer or fall. He added that when it is discussed he would like to see some of the things pointed out, although not the phasing or infill part, but the other areas that the Board should think about for the entire County instead of just the North Corridor. He said that he would like to discuss things like waste water management, clustered subdivisions and some of the staff's other recommendations. Harney said that the issue he has with that is that the Board would lose a plan for roads in that particular area of the County. Neuzil said that there's still a North Corridor, but what he's saying is that instead of having a North Corridor Plan separate from the Land Use Plan, it would be part of the Land Use Plan. Moore said that that was the intent of the original plan that was brought to the Board by the Zoning Commission so that by adopting the new policies it would eliminate the North Corridor Plan as a stand alone plan. He added that it's already identified as an area within the Land Use Plan. Stutsman said that then the Board would have to change the Road Performance Standards because the Land Use Plan designates the whole North Corridor as a development area.

Lehman said that he is between option 2. He said that he would like to send a memo to future Board members and the public to let them know what their intent is. Moore said that if the Board had 3 votes to go with option 2, they would still need to sit down and talk about the language. Neuzil asked if the Board would be willing to change the phases so that Phase I and II would just be Phase I and Phase III would be Phase II. Stutsman said that what the Board adopts today will impact how she sees the 5-Year Road Plan. Neuzil agreed.

Thompson suggested that for Phase I the Board will consider rezonings in line with the Land Use Plan. She added that for Phase II they discourage rezoning and review in 5 years and Phase III the Board anticipates a long time before development. Neuzil said that that is exactly what staff is proposing because they don't encourage Phase II until Phase I is done. Moore replied that they don't have to do it that way. Neuzil said that the Board doesn't have to do any of this. Lehman said that he isn't sure about the language of the plan. Stutsman replied that if the Board gave Planning and Zoning direction about this, then the next step will be to write the language. Moore said that writing the language could address some of Neuzil's concerns as well as Harney and Lehman's. He added that if the Board decides to pick a phasing option, then staff can work on specifying the language on when to switch from one phase to another. Neuzil said his biggest concern is that they have the North Corridor Roads Feasibility Study and they will make Phase II the area where they don't want that to be done. Moore replied that Planning and Zoning made the area so it is where they want future growth. Neuzil replied that he understood that, but added that Moore said that they don't want to encourage growth in Phase II until Phase I is done. Moore said that they don't until they get the roads in place. He added that once a road is built the Board can choose to remove the restrictions because they won't have to worry about it getting in the way of future roads. Lehman said that the Road Performance Standards can supercede the phases. Moore said that as the political decision-makers the Board can choose how they want to make those decisions.

Neuzil asked if the current system is broken. Moore said that it's not maximizing the County's revenues. Neuzil said that he'd love to have a long discussion about how a $400,000 or $500,000 house isn't being paid for with taxes. Stutsman said that one mile of paved road costs $1 million, which is a lot of tax dollars. Thompson added that a $500,000 house wouldn't pay that much in taxes in a long time. Neuzil said that there's some people on the Board that don't want any more growth or development to occur. Stutsman said she wants responsible growth and development. Neuzil agreed. Lehman said that part of the $2 million for the 2 mile road is not locally funded. Stutsman said not every dime of those tax dollars go to roads.

Dvorak asked if they've come to a consensus today. Thompson asked if 3 Board members tentatively support option 2. Lehman said that as of today yes. Thompson said that she didn't count 3 votes for the infill. She said this states that infill development is preferred over rezoning and creating new subdivisions where there's either a 30% or higher vacancy rate or where 30% or more of the residential property within one mile of the proposed rezoning site is unplatted. Moore said the Board can't vote today. Thompson said that they do need to give Planning and Zoning direction. She asked the Board if they want to leave that statement in. Moore said that they need another work session to discuss those options.

Stutsman asked if it would help if they add Charlie Duffy's land to Phase I because she thinks that is what is causing the problem. Harney disagreed. Lehman asked Planning and Zoning to provide the Board with numbers on how many zoned lots have been added and how many have been built on. Moore replied that they can, but it will take a little time because they're doing some other things for the Board as well. Lehman asked if they could also see how consistent the numbers are and if it's decreased over time since the Board hasn't really rezoned anything in that area. Moore said they can find out.

Bill Freese said he owns ground in this area and he has real estate people calling him about his land all the time to ask if there are any lots in the North Corridor for sale besides Westcott. He added that his land isn't for sale and he doesn't know of any 2, 3, or 5 acre lots that are. Freese said that his neighbor bought 120 acres and took the good farm ground out of production. He said that he would have liked to have bought that ground but he couldn't outbid him. Dvorak said that this is a difference of opinion, which they shouldn't be discussing today because the lots for sale depend on the area people live in. He said that there have been 3 lots for sale next to him for 5 years, but people want to go to other new developments. He said that he's heard developers complain about it because they're stuck with the last few lots. He said it's a different debate for another day. Freese said that the vacancy rate numbers are skewed because many of the zoned lots aren't really vacant and aren't for sale. Dvorak replied that that doesn't show in the vacancy rate because that only includes platted buildable lots. Thompson asked if in Planning and Zoning's professional journals, there is information on what proportion of lots will always be in the vacant category. Moore said that they can search for information on infill for rural development. He said that it's easy to find for urban, but nobody's completed that information for rural development. Thompson asked if there is information on suburbs.

Harney asked if in option 2 Phase III is left out. Stutsman said that it is in the immediate future. Moore said that the Board would want to infill the bottom half first. Lehman asked if they're saying absolutely no rezoning in Phase III. Moore said that they'd tell anyone that applied that it's a slim chance, but the Board has the final say. Lehman said that he's looking for a definition of what the phases are. Moore replied that the Board hasn't given them direction yet. Stutsman said that she'd look at the plan as saying if there are certain variables in place, she'd consider a rezoning because this is where they said in the Land Use Plan that they want growth and development to occur. Moore said that to address Lehman's concerns, Planning and Zoning needs another work session with the Board using Option 2 as a base to build on. He said that in the next work session Planning and Zoning will work with the Board to create language the Board wants for the different areas. Dvorak asked if the Board would like Planning and Zoning to send what they think the Board wants first, even though it can always be changed. Thompson said the Board needs something to look at. She asked if they've changed the plan enough that it needs to go back to the Zoning Commission. Moore said that it probably will, but Dvorak added that they don't have 3 votes to do anything yet.

Thompson asked if Planning and Zoning would work with Option 2 and write draft language. Moore replied that staff will look at Option 2 and look at language as to how to phase the development. Neuzil said that a few Board members have said that they won't support much of the 5-Year Road Plan unless they know what the phasing is, which means this meeting would have to be before the 5-Year Road Plan meeting. Stutsman said that the things on the 5-Year Road Plan are far enough out because they're not voting on them for next year. The Board decided to meet again on April 3, 2003 following the informal meeting.

Adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary