Reconvened at 2:02 p.m. as a work session on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan with all Board members present.

Bolkcom explained that he hoped to spend about an hour discussing the proposed comprehensive plan and possibly to discuss local option sales tax following the work session. Countryman said there were 2 topics of discussion, the vision statement and levels of service. Countryman said they have been spending a lot of time talking about the vision statement because as the Board discusses it, it gives her a good sense of where to go with the comp plan. She passed out a sheet outlining possible levels of service for areas that have been identified.

Duffy asked for explanation of the revisions to the original vision statement, and asked if it was Bolkcom and Jordahl who had provided the comments that resulted in editing the vision statement. Countryman said that she had requested comments from the Board and Jordahl and Bolkcom had suggested revisions. Countryman said the revisions of the vision statement were a matter of interpretation, for the sake of brevity. She read the previous version. Countryman said the revised vision statement was as follows: "The intent of this land use plan is to embody our vision for the future, build community, create shared goals, and preserve and enhance the quality of life in Johnson County. By it's decisions Johnson County will provide stewardship of the land and natural resources through proactive protection of the environment, preservation of agricultural lands and operations and will minimize conflicts between incompatible land uses." Duffy questioned the phrase, "Johnson County will provide stewardship of the land." He said that the landowners and farmers were stewards. Countryman said the intent was to promote responsible stewardship. Duffy said there were already a lot of regulations in place by the Federal and State governments. Stutsman suggested the word "encourage", rather than provide stewardship of the land. There was general agreement for this change. Jordahl suggested that the phrase "create shared goals" be replaced by "reflect shared goals". Stutsman said that part was confusing to her and she didn't know what it meant. Bolkcom agreed with Jordahl's suggestion. Jordahl also suggested the first sentence be rearranged. The first sentence would then read, "The intent of this Land Use Plan is to embody our shared goals in a vision of the future, to build community, preserve and enhance the quality of life in Johnson County." There was general agreement with this. Stutsman said that she felt this vision statement was much more succinct. Countryman said she felt it honed in on what the land use plan is.

Countryman said that at the last meeting they talked about ways to talk about the development in the county. She said they had discussed dividing the county into the urban area, the rural area, and the North Corridor, rather than looking at quadrants of the county. Countryman said they had agreed on classifications for cities and towns and the fringe areas, but for the rural villages they had not reached agreement, so they would not discuss those at this time. She said that regarding the North Corridor they should talk about levels of service with regard to the platted land, new subdivisions, and land that is zoned and not platted. She said that for the cities and towns, they should grow in the cities, preserve the rural areas, and work with the cities to discourage the annexation of prime agricultural land. Countryman said she needed to talk with Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore about fringe area agreements. She said they should spend some time talking about levels of service for agricultural area vs. the North Corridor vs. the fringe areas. Countryman asked the Board to discuss what they felt were issues for the county. Duffy said that sewers were an unnecessary expense in rural areas, and that he also didn't agree with rural water. Bolkcom asked if they were supposed to go through the plan and talk about what kind of levels of service were appropriate for different kinds of land classifications. Countryman said yes. Countryman outlined a list of services and explained that she wanted the Board to come to a consensus on an appropriate level of service in each for each level of development. Bolkcom asked whether the North Corridor was included under rural. Countryman said that rural meant agricultural land.

Countryman asked if the general standard would be gravel for rural roads and Bolkcom agreed. Lacina noted that some rural roads were paved collector roads and Stutsman added the arterial roads. Lacina said they would need to discuss with County Engineer Mike Gardner what is needed in terms of collector streets. Jordahl asked whether Countryman had seen the Johnson County Transportation Management Study put together by Johnson County Council of Governments Transportation Planner Jeff Davidson and Gardner. He noted that it suggested a direct relationship between traffic volume on a road and levels of service for the road. He said decisions they make on level of service may contravene the wisdom of the Transportation Study. Bolkcom said that gravel would generally be used on rural roads. He suggested that rural development would use on-site sewer systems, and private wells, not urban services; and Stutsman added volunteer fire protection. Jordahl objected that rural development often did not follow these guidelines and this ignored the situation that has come to exist. Bolkcom said the plan was meant to guide future decisions, that people shouldn't expect expanded services in rural Johnson County. Jordahl said the best thing to do would be to confront existing problems, saying the current problem implies the answer, how to proceed so as to not complicate the situation further. Countryman suggested that a confrontation of existing problems could be placed in an issue statement that said that the plan was formed in response to observation of existing problems. Duffy said the Board of Supervisors once had a what you see is what you get policy as far as rural services went.

Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak asked if Countryman is looking to identify existing road surfaces and then state what kind of development the County would encourage along those surfaces. Countryman said she is looking for a definition of rural in terms of level of service. She said a level of service would be determined for each area and unless a level of service is reached, then development won't occur. Duffy disagreed, citing differences in farm land. Dvorak suggested for Class B roads- no new development, gravel roads- agricultural residences permitted, and so forth on up. Bolkcom noted that approach could encourage residential development along Highway 1 in the agricultural area to the southwest. Lacina said this is a resource allocation question, if you build in a rural area on a gravel road, the County will not put the resources into municipal services for that area. Bolkcom agreed with the what you see is what you get approach, limited rural services. Jordahl said roads aren't the only issue, there is also the question of avoiding conflicts of land uses.

Countryman suggested agreement on general levels of service in terms of development which occurs henceforth and she will attempt to draft a land use plan considering discussions at the past few meetings. She said that her focus on levels of service was to determine whether they could be used in creating land use categories. Bolkcom asked whether there was sufficient discussion of level of service in rural areas. Countryman said they would need to come back and determine if they were in agreement on what is rural and what is not. Jordahl asked whether what you see is what you get was appropriate if a gravel road had 180 vehicles per day traveling it. Duffy said that a change could still be made due to circumstances beyond the Board's control, but that determining levels of service by the County was sound. Stutsman asked whether Jordahl wanted to pave a road based on 180 vehicles per day. Bolkcom said the plan's function was to outline what the Board wanted to see, rather than to define every situation. Countryman said that there were a lot of situations that don't conform with what will be written in the plan and then there will need to be a way to deal with that in the future, particularly in areas where land is zoned and not platted or platted and not developed.

Countryman suggested that the discussion move to the fringe areas. She asked whether all cities had a 2-mile fringe area, including a one-mile growth area. Bolkcom said Iowa City did. Dvorak said that Tiffin had one, and Swisher was developing one. Stutsman asked what levels of service were currently provided in the fringe areas. Dvorak said that it varied within the fringe areas, but urban services were required in Iowa City's growth areas, as if it were annexed into the City. He said the level of service would be determined collectively outside the growth area, each area identified differently. Duffy noted that providing urban services would encourage annexation. Dvorak said the intent was to not prevent a city's ability to grow, due to the difficulty of providing infrastructure at county densities. Bolkcom said it prevents additional costs for homeowners after annexation to bring them up to city standards. Duffy said that was not always a positive. Jordahl said he favors a city defining as much of a growth area as would be needed where they have a reasonable expectation to grow, but otherwise it should be up to the County to determine what development occurs. Countryman asked whether different standards should be applied within the growth areas, depending on where the cities intended to grow. Bolkcom and Lacina agreed. Duffy said he would agree with setbacks, but the County should not prepare land for annexation. Countryman said that was not the intention, but plat approval would be according to standards agreed to with a city. Lacina said it could include city building permits or inspections. Duffy favored cooperation with the city but not adding too much expense for the homeowner. Bolkcom noted the property in the growth area was going to eventually be annexed. Countryman asked whether the County wanted to set standards for agricultural areas in fringe areas different than for other areas. Jordahl said that services should follow population and the areas not to be developed should have services determined by the County. Countryman asked if there should be an intermediate step for agricultural areas in the fringe area. Lacina said for long-term planning, it was necessary to consider land outside the growth area.

Dvorak noted that in the current fringe area agreements, the cities had some more stringent requirements than the County's rural design standard for the outlying portions of the fringe areas, also noting different density requirements. He said the County controls zoning, but that it was in the County's best interest to cooperate with city governments regarding fringe area agreements, because the Iowa Code gives the cities the right to enforce their subdivision standards in the fringe areas. Countryman said there appeared to be 3 levels of service outside the urban areas: rural areas, growth areas (within fringe areas), and fringe areas (intermediate area). Jordahl noted that while this situation existed, it was not necessarily a plan. Lacina asked whether intermediate fringe areas meant the County had to work with the municipalities to come up with a mutually acceptable growth pattern or plan. Jordahl said those areas indicated a compromise rather than a preference for growth. Jordahl suggested saying the County would not permit development in the growth areas and that cities would annex and provide services and then develop. Lacina said the city may not want to annex a property but want it consistent with city building codes. Countryman said requirements would be determined through agreement of a city and the County. Lacina said cities may want infrastructure put in at the developer's expense and Jordahl agreed with that idea. Dvorak said an example of that is the developer putting in the streets and sewer lines to city standards and then hooking the sewer lines up to a packaged private sewer treatment plant until the city reaches that development.

Countryman said she had enough information to begin drafting a land use plan. The next meeting was scheduled for June 4th at 1:00 p.m. Countryman agreed to provide copies of the draft to the Board on June 1st. Jordahl noted language in the Zoning Ordinance regarding conflicts between land uses.

Recessed at 2:55 p.m.; reconvened informal at 3:08 p.m.

(Continued in Part 6)