Chairperson Bolkcom called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 3:05 p.m. Members present were: Joseph Bolkcom, Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Stephen Lacina, and Sally Stutsman.

Countryman Group Principal Karen Countryman explained that the last time the Board met with her the Board generated a list of statements to be considered in drafting the vision statement. Countryman said she had fit each individual statement under the concept statements which she had summarized from the individual comments. She asked each Board member to go through and prioritize the statements from 1 through 5.

The rankings of the statements for development of the Vision of the Johnson County Land Use Plan were as follows (with the lowest total score being the top priority):

Johnson County is economically and environmentally prosperous. The economy is based on the growth and retention of population and quality jobs. Economic growth and land use is sensitive to the environment.

Lacina ranked this 1st; Stutsman ranked it 3rd; Bolkcom and Jordahl ranked it 5th. Total score: 14.

Land Use reflects a "sense of place," conflicts between land uses are minimized, and land use policies are consistent and realistic.

Bolkcom and Jordahl ranked this 1st; Stutsman ranked it 2nd; Lacina ranked it 4th. Total score: 8.

Preserve existing and create additional open space in an interconnected system for active and passive uses, solitude, and social interactions.

Bolkcom and Jordahl ranked this 2nd; Stutsman and Lacina ranked it 5th. Total score: 14.

Maintain agriculture as a viable industry in Johnson County, and preserve agricultural land.

Stutsman ranked this 1st; Bolkcom, Jordahl, and Lacina ranked it 3rd. Total score: 10.

Coordinate growth with other government entities in and adjacent to Johnson County. Direct growth toward existing infrastructure.

Lacina ranked this 2nd; Stutsman, Jordahl, and Bolkcom ranked it 4th. Total score: 14.

Bolkcom asked where environmental protection would come in. Countryman said it comes in under the 2nd one, and also the 1st one. Jordahl said he would disagree with it being the 1st one. In reference to the point listed under- Coordinate growth with other government entities..., which refers to terrain and water amenities, Duffy asked if they were voting for water systems in the rural area. Countryman said no.

Duffy did not rank every statement, so Countryman compiled the total rankings without his vote. Countryman explained she tried to use the words of the Board in creating the list of statements from the previous meeting.

Countryman gave the Board a handout titled New Plan which showed where there was agreement and disagreement on what they want to see in the new plan or eliminated from it. At least 3 Supervisors were in total agreement on each of the 7 policies set forth in the new land use plan for housing and residential development and regarding goals, the majority was in agreement for housing and residential. For strategies, it was not that the Board was in disagreement, the members did not mark them in agreement. She said the more specific they got, the less the comments are. Only 1 in 4 of the actions were agreed on. Countryman said there is a high level of agreement in the policy direction section, and agreement starts to fall in the goals section, and even less agreement in strategies. She said there seems to be a basis to work from, working with the policies and the goals. Countryman found the land use was difficult to compare to other topics, and it was the area where there seemed to be the most disagreement among Board members.

Duffy chose not to rank all the statements. He felt that some of them were equally important and he disagreed with the method used. Duffy asked what was meant by infrastructure. Countryman said she thought the Board meant that development should be located where existing water and sewer and roads exist. Duffy said he is not for sewer and water systems in the rural areas. Jordahl said it read- existing infrastructure, which would just be roads. Duffy said it should just say roads.

Recessed at 3:35 p.m.; reconvened at 3:43 p.m.

Countryman said next time she will distribute information 2-3 days in advance. She said all of the statements are important and all will be included in the vision statement. Countryman said all the statements came out of the discussion of the vision statement the last time they met. The purpose of the rankings was to give her a sense of where the priorities are for the framework of a draft vision statement. Open space, preservation of agriculture, infrastructure, sense of place, and strong economy and economic plan will all be part of the vision; this process will not to eliminate some things. Countryman said Duffy can add his votes or comments and she would factor those in. The votes indicate that the top priority is that land use is a sense of place, and the second priority is to preserve agriculture. The other 3 all got the same rank. Countryman said it makes sense, because each of those 3 can support the other 2.

Jordahl commented that the public input sessions emphasized environmental protection, but none of the statements voted on mentioned protecting and preserving the environment. He thought to be responsive to what they have heard, environment should be number 1, and sense of place does not say that as strongly as he wants. He would like to see economic development and environmental protection separated into 2 separate issues. Stutsman said she is not ready to change all this; she wants to go to the next step. Bolkcom agreed that the number 1 priority of public input was preserving the environment. Stutsman said they should add a statement rather than changing the first statement, which she thought would mean going back through the process and starting over again. Bolkcom said he saw the first statement as supporting economic development, and did not see that it was about the environment. He said there are no bullets under the first statement dealing with environmental protection. Lacina said the ranking was to get the Board to a 2-3 sentence summary, and he agreed with Stutsman that they need to go through the steps. Bolkcom said he would be fine with a vision statement that talks about environmental protection. Lacina said they were defeating the process because of details. Jordahl said this isn't a detail and Bolkcom said the environment was a big detail that they have overlooked. Countryman said she knows the environment was the top priority in the draft plan. She said the environment runs through housing, runs through open space, and runs through the way we use agricultural land, and runs through the way we develop; and clearly there needs to be a strong policy supporting that. She asked them to let her draft something and then get their response. The Board's consensus was to move forward and let Countryman draft a vision statement.

Countryman next explained a map depicting housing units per acre throughout the county that Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak produced from information he had on the computer. She said it shows where the development has occurred. Jordahl noted that around the Coralville Reservoir, where it is a minimum of 3 acres per lot, there is a higher density. Dvorak said much of the development was before the 3 acre zoning limit was imposed in 1969 Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore explained that it is a range of 0.2-1.0 house per acre. Jordahl said he'd like to see the ranges correspond to levels matching County requirements and Countryman said they could do that. Countryman asked what the Board means by preserve environmentally sensitive areas. Jordahl thought the Sensitive Areas Committee would come up with some guidelines and policy suggestions. He said it doesn't mean the entire county would be declared a sensitive area and it becomes a gigantic park. Lacina said he thinks the Board is closer than they realize, that there can be some development that is sensitive to everything, preserving an agricultural nature, and not being intrusive; he said maybe they might encourage growth in villages, which allows preservation of the rural ambience. Jordahl agreed with Lacina; without prejudging the conclusion in terms of specific policies, there would be room to do some sensitive development in areas outside of areas presently defined by the plan.

Duffy asked what the plan is to be used for, if is it just for zoning property. He asked how it affects farming. Dvorak said Duffy's question may be more directed to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance than the Land Use Plan. Dvorak said the Land Use Plan is for future development in Johnson County. Duffy asked what if a person does not want to rezone the property. Dvorak said the plan has nothing to do with matters other than land use. Moore said the Land Use Plan would be a guide for whether or not it is appropriate to rezone land in a particular area. Countryman said the plan is only a guide to refer to when someone comes in with a rezoning request. Duffy felt it may be restricting property for people who do not want to rezone. Lacina explained that by law, agricultural land is exempt, so that they don't apply rules and regulations other than what they are empowered to do. Dvorak said the Land Use Plan is used if a person wants to develop land; the Land Use Plan stops, then the proposed sensitive areas ordinance, other subdivision ordinances, health department ordinances, etc. are used. They try to develop the land in compliance with the ordinances in place. Dvorak said the person with 39 acres, who does not want to develop it, is not impacted.

Countryman asked what environmentally sensitive means to the Board in the area of the North Corridor. Duffy said it depends if they are still farming it; and if they are, they should be exempt from rules and regulations. Lacina said they are exempt until they decide that they are going to change the use and rezone, plat or develop. Bolkcom said environmentally sensitive areas include woodlands, steep slopes, wetlands, etc. and he noted the newly appointed committee should give them some guidance. Jordahl noted the 1996 North Corridor Plan had a section on sensitive areas on pages 17 through 24. Bolkcom said what is worth protecting will vary for every application that comes in, and hopefully the Sensitive Areas Committee will come up with guidelines. Countryman asked what environmentally sensitive means in the agricultural areas. Lacina said if construction is allowed in agricultural areas they should be sensitive to corn suitability ratings. Bolkcom said protection against soil erosion, floodways, floodplains, and wetlands should be considered. Jordahl added steep slopes, hydric soils, historical remains, and high watertable should be considered. Bolkcom noted that environmental protection is clearly a policy direction for the County, evidenced by the fact that they appointed the Sensitive Areas Committee to focus on how to deal with those areas. Duffy asked Dvorak what size subdivisions would be to fall under the draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and Dvorak said, as proposed, it would cover subdivisions of 4 lots or more and commercial subdivisions.

Countryman said she will add Duffy's input and draft a vision statement by April 20th. Lacina asked for color coding in the map that was produced, including for water. The Board agreed to meet on April 22nd at 2:00 p.m. to review the vision statement.

Adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Bridget Penick, Recording Secretary