Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-08 Transcription January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 1 January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session 4:35 PM Council: Bailey, Champion, Correia, Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn USG: Baeth Staff: Atkins, Boothroy, Davidson, Dilkes, Fosse, Franklin, Helling, Karr, Knoche, Okerlund, Trueblood TAPE: 07-02, Side 2; 07-03, Both Sides. Planninl! and Zoninl! Items Bailey: We're gonna start. Ross is gonna be a few minutes late, so let's just get started. Planning & Zoning, Ms. Planning & Zoning. a) CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 23 ON AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF MCLEAN STREET BETWEEN HUTCHINSON AVENUE AND LEXINGTON AVENUE. (V AC06-00006) Franklin: Ok. The first item, you've got some setting public hearings for January 23'd The first one is on a vacation ofa portion of McLean Street between Hutchinson Avenue and Lexington A venue. This has never been opened as a street. b) CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 23 ON AN ORDINANCE REZONING 17.75-ACRES OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF MORMON TREK BOULEVARD AT EAGLE VIEW DRIVE AND GRACE DRIVE FROM INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL ( CI-1) TO OFFICE COMMERCIAL (CO-1) (REZ06-00021) Franklin: The second one is setting a public hearing for the 23'd on rezoning 17.75 acres ofland located on the east side of Mormon Trek Boulevard, from CI-I to CO-I. This is along the new Mormon Trek Boulevard extended just south of the highway on the east side of Mormon Trek. It's where the PIP building is going in. Bailey: And that will allow PIP? Franklin: It will, with. Yeah. We'll work that out. Bailey: Ok. Vanderhoef: And it won't be, it won't be conditional use? Bailey: PIP won't be conditional use? Correia: Be non-conforming? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 2 Vanderhoef: Non-conforming. Thank you. Franklin: Non-conforming. No, we've worked through, there's one modification to the code I think that we're going to need to be making, but it's all worked out that PIP will not become non-conforming. There's a timing issue here, because if we do the change now before the zoning goes through and we make PIP non-conforming where they are, we wouldn't want to have an unfortunate circumstance in which that building was bumed down, for instance, and then they could not reestablish or there was something that would create a problem for them in their current situation or with their new building. So we're trying to be careful with this as it evolves. Bailey: So you're working out the timing. Elliott: What is going in there, Karin? Can we say yet? Franklin: Well, no - I don't know. I mean, the PIP printing is going in. We know that's one tenant there, but I can't tell you for sure what, who the other tenants are. Elliott: Ok. But a purchaser is ready to buy, and - Franklin: That's my understanding, but since we don't get involved in those details, I don't know for sure. Elliott: Ok. Ok. Vanderhoef: And has there been any look at the medical offices in this whole changeover? As I understood it, there was some question about that, because we changed that in the - Franklin: Right. We changed that in the CI-l zone and that was one ofthe issues that was brought up as to why the zoning in this area needed to be changed. The decision was that rather than make the change to the commercial intensive zoning that the CO-l zoning would work better here in this particular circumstance. So, as far as this area is concerned, those issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of all of the parties involved, today. Vanderhoef: So we're gonna end up with all CO zoning versus CI-l? Franklin: Ah, is that correct, Bob? Yes. Bob Brooks is back there nodding his head. Vanderhoef: Ok. Thank you. c) CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 23,2007, ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, CHAPTER 5, SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ARTICLE J, FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, TO ADOPT THE RE. FORMATTED FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP. Franklin: Ok. Moving on to item c, consider a motion setting a public hearing for January 23'd on ordinance amendments relative to the flood plain management standards. This was This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 3 something that was brought to us by HIS and will be considered by the Planning and Zoning commission at their next meeting and will be back to you in time for the 23'd And it is, as the comment indicates, relative to the map. It's basically a housekeeping, technical kind of change that has to occur. It is not a change in boundaries from what this comment says. d) AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PLAN FOR THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD. (REZ05.00025/SUB06-00020) Franklin: Item d is the public hearing that you have on for tomorrow night, and this is to make some changes in the planned development for the Peninsula neighborhood. And there are a number of amendments that are being suggested. Obviously, I think you all know where the Peninsula neighborhood is by this site plan, or location map. This is the new planned development, and I'lljust run through the aspects of this that are changing. Vanderhoef: Karin, I wasn't able to read this in the packet, because it was so tiny. Can we blow that up and just get a better identification of where we're talking? Franklin: Will I blow it up? (laughter) V anderhoef: Yeah - can you enlarge it? Bailey: That's what we've got here. Vanderhoef: Well. Franklin: Ah, I don't know - I don't think I can. No, I don't think I can. Vanderhoef: You can't maximize it? Franklin: I don't think I can. Not with this kind of program. It's in a PowerPoint, so it's fixed. I'll try to explain it. Vanderhoef: Ok. Franklin: This is Foster Road coming in here. This is where the existing single-family houses are. This is the large condo building with the lofts. This is the affordable housing apartment here. And so Foster Road now is in here and it comes down through Phase 2. And then either at this point or at this point you come down into the asphalt drive that takes you down to the dog park. So there's lots along here. There's a building being built here, and I think one here. This is Emma Harvat Square. What is being proposed is that this area to the west, which would be the large estate houses in Phase 3, instead be put in Phase 2. Phase 2 includes these properties here. Ok. That is being done at the request of a local builder who would like to be building some of those estate houses. There was nothing in the inventory in either Phase I or Phase 2 to satisfy that and we felt that this was a positive move for the development as a whole, since it will give an opportunity for a This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Coullcil Work Sessioll Page 4 housing type that is not currently there, and would also put a greater emphasis on the single-family detached housing for the neighborhood. Right now, the feel of the area is very dense, and unless you look at the plan for the whole neighborhood, it can be difficult to understand the way that it's going to be as it's built out, and so- O'Donnell: Karin, what kind offeel is this gonna give us? What kind of thing are you talking about out? Franklin: I think what it's going to gi"e you is a little bit more spaciousness, because these are larger lots than what you see on the Peninsula otherwise. It's also going to allow for some , of the bigger houses which, evidently, there is some market for, at least with the particular builder. So that's one aspect of it. The other is to change this area right in here. Let me see. I think there's a. Yeah, originally, this was the configuration and, let me go back again. It's between Ball and Canton streets - this area right here. Again, Foster Road comes down and will eventually corne around and go all the way down to the dog park. In the original concept, there was this notion of what was called California bungalows. I'm not sure what was California about them, but that's what they were called. And the idea was that you had a pedestrian way through here with lots that faced that pedestrian way, and you had small bungalows about 900 square feet. And the access was via an alley on either side of it, in which you would have a parking space, but not a garage. The developers do not believe at this point that this is really a marketable product here. And so have proposed that it be changed, such that instead of those two alleyways corning through and the bungalows being in this area, that it be changed to the cottage configuration, which is what you see existing here. This is Swisher, right off of Foster as you corne in. As well as the townhouses and row houses, which is what you see in this area, which is currently built. These are the brick ones, and these are the ones that have the siding, cement-board siding on them. So, that's the change. It goes from the twelve bungalows to three single-family and six townhouse units. That's the new. Vanderhoef: Put that back a second, would you? Now, I'm -I'm seeing seven. Franklin: Ok. Remember that there were these that were already there, ok? Bailey: Ok. Franklin: These are the cottage and then the over-under duplexes. Ok. So those will stay the same, and these are townhouses here. Bailey: What's the square footage of the cottage design generally, or the range? Franklin: Oh, I think it's about, between 1800 to 2000. Bailey: So twice as large as this California bungalow. Franklin: Yeah. And so it's in, it's in this area in here in which there is change. Vanderhoef: Ok. And then do they have garages? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 5 Franklin: These are the three single-family and then this is four units of townhouses, row houses here, and this adds probably two units to this townhouse/row house grouping here. Bailey: And cottages have garages. Franklin: Yes. So do townhouses and row houses. Vanderhoef: Detached? Are they detached or how do you? Franklin: They can be detached or they can be with a breezeway. Now, there's also, one of the other changes here is to add another building type, which is a bungalow that has an attached garage. That's in one of the other changes that's being suggested. That's the front configuration, and it's Gary Frakes that's going to be doing these. Vanderhoef: Ok. So, it would appear that there is a street, I don't know whether you call it a street or an alley. Franklin: This is an alley. Vanderhoef: That one's an alley. Franklin: And this is an alley here. And this is a street. Vanderhoef: Ok. And then the street up there. Franklin: Yeah. Your garages are probably going to be back here. Vanderhoef: Ok. So, will you have any access off of the street to the garages of the cottages? Franklin: No. Those will be in the back. Vanderhoef: Those will have to be in the back. Champion: They're all in the back. Franklin: Yeah. It's that configuration. Really, the only houses that have access, street access, are these, the estate houses along here. I think there's a few of these that do, although there's an easement here for a rear access. And as long as I'm up here, another change in this is to - ah, when Mr. Stamper was part of this whole thing he wanted to get another lot in here. And we had a 7-A here. That is being eliminated, and all of these lots in here are just getting a little bit wider, cause it was too tight. Bailey: So, I'm just curious. As we .talk about housing, what was seen as unfeasible ofthe California bungalows? The lack of garage or the square footage? Franklin: Both. I think it was the small square footage ahd the lack of garage that was less attractive. Bailey: Because what would we expect to be a price range for one of those types of houses? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 Franklin: Bailey: Franklin: Bailey: Franklin: Bailey: Correia: Franklin: Elliott: Correia: Franklin: Elliott: Franklin: Elliott: Franklin: Elliott: City Council Work Session Page 6 For the California bnngalow? Yeah, the 900 square feet. I don't know that I can answer that. Ok. The developer will be, Kevin Murrow will be here tomorrow night. And then you can ask specific questions about sales and all that kind of stuff, and then the pricing. Because, I don't know necessarily what the price is. It's just sort of- You don't have the price - that was my question - of what we're proposing to get. So we'll ask tomorrow. Yeah, please. Your voice sounds great. I know. Yeah - it's very. I don't have a problem going ahead with the public hearing, but I would really like to have a comprehensive summary of this whole project. When it started, what the City investment has been in it, what was hoped, what was - because it seems to be a huge disappointment at this point. Last summer I was out there, the sign says no downpayment, no closing costs - obviously, it's just not moving. I'd like to have a review and an update on the Peninsula project before we start tinkering around with this here and that there. We've asked, we've asked Mr. Murrow to provide that update for you tomorrow. Because remember that this is a project in which the City owned the land and we sold it to a developer with a plan on it, just as we do many other developments in the City, except for the fact that we sold the land to the developer. Once the developer is doing it, with the zoning that is in place, the developer is then responsible for building it out and doing it as any other developer would. So we do not have a role in setting the prices, aside from the purchase agreement in which we said 10% of the lots, or 10% of the nnits need to be made available to low to moderate-income housing providers, which we do not normally require. How much of the land that the City purchased has been sold? We've sold Phase I and Phase 2. I'd have to check on what the acreage. Is that half? Probably? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City COlUlcil Work Session , Page 7 Franklin: Probably. Elliott: Well, maybe tomorrow will'- I guess, I'm really interested in having a comprehensive I look at what the investment lis, what the intentions were, what the timetable was, what the situation is now, what are w~ planning for the future, and I doubt that that's going to come up tomorrow. So I do~'t know. O'Donnell: Are you talking, Bob, befor~ we go into Phase 3? I Elliott: Yeah, go ahead with public ~earings, but that - that's a huge unknown situation. Franklin: Mike. These changes that m:e being suggested are being market-driven. They are ways in which the developer believ~s that they will be able to enhance the marketability of the neighborhood. And so we 1ifve looked at them in the context of what the goal was in terms of getting this neighb~rhood in the first place and whether they would be detrimental to that or not. The recommendation of the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission is that they wi1J not be detrimental to the vision of the neighborhood, and the developer believes they will be advantageous in terms of the marketplace. , Elliott: The vision in many people's minds was quite suspect. But let's wait 'til tomorrow night and see what we get. Dilkes: Well, Ijust want to clarifY. !We're, we've closed on the first two phases, but we're under contract, under purchase agreement for the remaining phases, so it's not, you know, we can't change the decisions that have been made in that respect, at this point. Vanderhoef: The only thing they're doing is adding some of those houses into the Phase 2 that weren't there before. Franklin: Right. Vanderhoef: So they're increasing the site. So is that a purchase then of? Franklin: They would then be purcha$ing this part to then sell to a local developer. Vanderhoef: Mmmm hmmm. So there's :more ofthem coming in off of that section. Franklin: Was very interested in a lot; of those lots. Right, right, right. Correia: And what would that be? Franklin: Pardon me? The income? Correia: Uh huh. Franklin: I haven't done the calculation on it. I mean, we have, as Eleanor said, a purchase agreement which has a set amount per unit plus 6% per annum, and so whatever that figures out to be is what we would get for that phase. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. __.__,__~___~~___.___,____,,_,._,____'__,"_n____.____~_____..______,__...__ January 8,2007 Bailey: Franklin: Bailey: Franklin: Bailey: Franklin: O'Donnell: Franklin: Elliott: Franklin: Elliott: Wilburn: City Council Work Session , Page 8 And with the affordable uni~s that's 10% per phase, or how does that work? It's 10% for the entire projett, and as you note on here, there are some lots that are, they have a nomenclature. Let's $ee. Like on this one, CAHU, that's Cottage Affordable Housing Unit. What that means is that this particular unit would be available to a low, low to moderate income hoJsing provider, and that the cost of the land would be discounted. And those are s~attered throughout the development, so if there's any change in those, we look at them ad",inistratively. If it's not a significant change, then we can make that change administr~tively. But the idea is to have distribution throughout, as opposed to having them all ~n one spot. Sure. And I assume we're oh track for those? Yes. Ok. Yeah. Just to make sure that you are aware of the other changes that are part of this proposal, as I said, there wa~ to include this bungalow with a attached garage as one of the building types that woul~ be added. Likewise, that there is a multi-unit with underground parking that n~eded to be made part of the codebook. Karin, is it conceivable thatiall of the bungalow types could have an attacked garage? Is that? Ah yes, yeah. That would 11j-ake it, that's another, it just makes it another option, in terms of choices. The smaller mispellaneous amendments are included in the staff report, in the packets. There was a labelnig of one of the lots that there would be four units. The elimination of a shared driveway on lot 54 and 55. This is another one that Gary Frakes is working on, building a buil\ling on lot 55. And given the fact that there was access, a shared access right on this ~ide, it seemed that this was redundant, and the buyer preferred to have the acces~ here. So we're eliminating that common drive there. I told you about lot 7 -A being eliJjninated because we needed to have more room on these lots up here, and then there's a set-back change for these estate homes in which the built-to line is 12 feet instead of 7 ~et. So, kind of some minor stuff in that regard. Ok? But these are what the dev"1\oper is requesting? That is correct. Good. I I had an opportunity to wa* a neighborhood, a fully built-out development like this in Chaska, Minnesota, near l\1inneapolis. It was real, they had a lot more, ah, green space/wetland in the area tijan this does, but I think that allowing some of those larger lots will help, once those are built out, give people a focus to just kind of visualize what it's like to walk through anti drive through one ofthose. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. --~-".._--~-_..._.._..-.__._-_._----,--~-----_.._--~ January 8, 2007 City COUJ'lcil Work Session Page 9 Bailey: Right, right. Franklin: And part ofthe development ofthis concept, too, part of the idea was that we traded off development on the hillsides, those hillsides that feel like and are a part of the Peninsula park. That that was a tradeoff to cluster that development up at the top, and of course leave the entire Peninsula park free of any building whatsoever. Ok. e) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW A MINOR MODIFICATION IN CASES WHERE THERE ARE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES MEETING THE STANDARDS FOR STRUCTURED PARKING FACILITIES WHEN RETROFITTING SUCH FACILITIES WITHIN EXISTING BUILDINGS. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) f) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF PEPPERWOOD PLAZA, A SUBDIVISION OF IOWA CITY, IOWA Franklin: Moving on. Item e is a second consideration on the minor modification allowance for structured parking and then Item f, we've had a request to indefinitely defer that. It appears to be a matter of getting signatures on some of the legal documents, 'cause there's multiple owners in Pepperwood Plaza. And, if! could at this point, well, I'll be around for agenda items, but if there's any questions on the economic development allocation or CDBG home investment I would like to know that tonight. I'll try to answer them if! can, and if! cannot, I'll make sure that Steve Long is here tomorrow night. 4(e)8. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DEDICATION OF OUTLOT C, AS PLATTED IN WILD PRAIRIE ESTATES PART 5, IOWACITY, IOWA, TO THE CITY OF IOWA CITY Vanderhoef: I've got one question, if! might, of Karin, that is on the, ah, consent calendar #8, about the Wild Prairie Estates, where we're being asked to accept this outlot. But I don't know what the size of it is and I don't know whether there is future land adjacent to that that will come in later stages to make it larger. Franklin: There is. I don't know the exact size. Do you, Terry? No. There is other land that is adjacent to it that includes a storm water area, and we can't accept that until the development has been completed around the basin. But yes, it will be part of a larger, and it also attaches to some ground that we have to the north of it. Correct? Vanderhoef: And, are we talking 5 acres or? Franklin: Oh, no - we're talking, ah, 20 total. I'm looking at Terry, and he's giving me this blank look in return. Trueblood: Woke me up. Franklin: I'm sorry. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 10 Bailey: Wild Prairie - where the heck is that? Franklin: How much total ground without lot c, a and the ground to the north? Trueblood: . I don't know. (laughter) Elliott: Thank you. Bailey: Thanks for coming to the mic. Vanderhoef: But it's, it's big. It's much larger than what the neighborhood open space asks for. That's always my concern, that, you know, we're trying to get 3 acres or 4 acres, and we want at least 7. Franklin: Yeah, no, it's considerable. Vanderhoef: Ok. Thank you. Wilburn: Are you leaving? Franklin: No, I'm not. Wilburn: Ok. Elliott: You're gonna be back to talk about the housing, the affordable housing market allowance? Franklin: I am. Elliott: Ok. Good. Franklin: Well, actually, is that next? I'm right here. Wilburn: That's next. Affordable HODsin!! Market Analvsis RFP Franklin: I'm not going anywhere. Ok. This is the request for proposals which we usually do not bring to the Council, but since this is a topic that you have particular interest in, I wanted to make sure that you were ok with what was being sent out. It was also reviewed by what I'm calling the Housing Alliance, that group of people that are getting together to talk about this. And they have made some suggestions which were incorporated into this. And basically, what I need from you tonight is just an informal nod, is there anything that's there that jumps out at you that's problematic? Elliott: Karin, I talked to one of the persons from that Alliance - you're talking about the alliance we got with diverse - This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 Franklin: Elliott: Franklin: Elliott: Franklin: Elliott: Franklin: Bailey: Elliott: Correia: Bailey: Elliott: Wilburn: Correia: Wilburn: Champion: City Council Work Session Page II Yeah, Glen and Karen and those folks, yeah. And the thought was, they might have some to quite a bit ofthe information you're requesting in the proposal. And why could we not first get that and then in the proposal ask for the rest after we have a foundation of information available. Well, you're talking about the Association of Realtors. And what would happen- Well. This group is meeting tomorrow morning, is my understanding. What would happen with the consultant is that they use local resources for information. Once we get the proposals, we look at how they intend to approach the problem, which is data gathering, but it's also analysis and looking at what the barriers are to accessibility, coming up with solutions for overcoming those barriers. So there's a lot to this beyond the data gathering. The data gathering part of it we work very closely with consultants on that part and steer them to local resources such as the Association of Realtors. So they're not creating the data raw. We wouldn't expect them to. They're gonna use census, they're gonna use the Association, they will use local information. And that's part of working with a consultant, to make that happen. But then, how much of that project would that involve? My thought is, we could get this foundation information for nothing. And ask less of the consultant. I think that - A consultant is a key information gathering person. Yeah, but we could gather it for nothing. Who's we? We can't gather information for nothing. There's always a staff cost. I would suspect if we went to this, to this group, they could gather that information for us. I think that my - And they would give it to - oh. My impression was, and the way that I look at consultants in general, is that it would involve both a compilation, a synthesis, but an analysis and interpretation. In other words, it's a more broad picture of what it is that we are asking to be addressed through this as opposed to "ok, now here's a chunk of data." It, it would be more focused than what all is being asked through a consultant to do. So, there would be things not addressed by any one of the particular groups, so why not have it be put all addressed together in context with the entire picture, is my interpretation. And they will not create that data. They will use that data. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8,2007 Elliott: Bailey: Elliott: Correia: Bailey: Correia: O'Donnell: Elliott: Correia: O'Donnell: Bailey: O'Donnell: Franklin: Elliott: City Council Work Session Page 12 Why not have that gathered for us prior to the consultant, so they don't charge us for that? There is, there's an advantage to having a consultant gather data, because when he or she gets that information, he or she can ask follow-up questions on the spot or they create relations with those groups and those groups become resources for the analysis and the more in-depth sort of part of the project. Well, it appears there's enough to go ahead with this. But it seems to me we could ask this group to gather that basic foundation information and then meet with the consultant. You know, I think we're saying the same thing. I think that what we know is that a consultant doesn't need to spend a lot oftime and money getting data. We know the data is there. They just need to - we can tell them who to talk to, where to get it, so they have those relationships. We know that they're not going to have to spend a lot of time so if we get a proposal that wants to spend a lot of money and time gathering data, we're gonna say well we don't, we know that it's not going to take a lot oftime and money to gather the data. What we want you to do is synthesize and analyze it, give us recommendations. We're looking for expertise in analysis. And we're going to use all of these people that way. How much of, how We're gonna pay somebody to ask them, and we could ask them for nothing. We're not going to pay them a lot to ask them, because they're going to get it really fast. Have we got any preliminary figure on what this consultant is going to cost? It's always good to pay consultants. It's important. That would be interesting to - I really, I can't guess, Mike, because there are some, there's some things that are being asked in this too that I don't know how somebody's gonna find it out. And that's partly a consequent of input from different people and what we want to try and get out of this. Because to look at this - fot instance, cost-burdened households. To look at that in terms of income and demographics. Income is easy, that's census material. But that's from 2000, so that's, mmm, getting old. No, I looked through that, and it appears that there are things in there we mayor may not get, but let's see if we can. I agree with that. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. - --------~._~---_._-------_.._-_._.-'--'--"'--" January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 13 Franklin: Right. Right. But if we want to be able to look at the whole housing situation, say well, this sort of household can't access housing because of x, y and z - if we can get that much information from this work, I think it'll be great. Bailey: Right. Franklin: But I'm not totally optimistic that we can get everything that we want, and that's why I can't even guess how much it would cost. And when the RF, when the responses come in, we will need to look at them in terms of that cost, and maybe reconsider what it is we're asking, if the cost of that is. Elliott: Yeah. All I'm saying is there's a lot of information out there available to us right now. Champion: Ifwe use any of it (can't hear). Franklin: Yes. It'll be used, it will be used. Anything else? Wilburn: I have a question about the announcement itself. Correia: I think it looks really great. Vanderhoef: Ijust have one. Bailey: Huge scope of work. Vanderhoef: In your memo to Council, you're talking about income groups up to and including 120%. Is that a typo? Franklin: No. I changed my mind just to tighten it up to the 110.120%, you're probably starting to get into the open market, and you know, that's a judgement call. If you want to go to 120 we can. Correia: But the RFP says 110. Franklin: I know. I did that purposefully. Correia: Ok. Franklin: But, I'm not wedded to it. If you would rather go to 120 we could do that. Bailey: I think I 10 is good. Vanderhoef: I guess what I'm curious about, ah, when we look at the cost burden and how it has been changing in Iowa City in the last few years, it wasn't that long ago that median priced house was in that 140 range, and the last I read, it's 188. So we've done a big jump. So how do we put our residents who already live here and whether they can continue to live here with taxes and so forth, on a house that maybe has escalated. And so whether we need another breakdown in the 100 and, above the 110 but below. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 14 Franklin: Well remember, this is about getting access to housing. Champion: Not if you're already there. Vanderhoef: I know. Franklin: Now it's another question if you're getting into the ability of people to stay in, I'm assuming in the case you're talking about, in an owner-occupied house. Vanderhoef: Well, that's one piece off there. But I guess maybe the real census thing that we need update on is has median income changed that much. Franklin: Yes. Remember, every year we get from BUD the median income, what they consider to be the median income for our area. And it has gone up. So I 10% of median income is higher today than it was last year or 5 years ago. So I think in terms of the appreciation in house prices, in housing prices, and the appreciation in median income, there has been appreciation in both. The question that this is about is are those coming together in a way that people can access housing, or are they getting further apart? Is that why people can't access housing, or are there other reasons? Vanderhoef: That's the question we need answered, and that's what I'm trying to get at. Champion: Well, that's what this whole thing is about. Correia: That's what this is for. Vanderhoef: So. Franklin: I think we'll get it. Vanderhoef: You think we'll get it out of the questions that we're asking? Champion: Yes. Correia: Mmm hmm. Vanderhoef: Then one more question. Is the data in our whole statistical area, or is it just real specific to metropolitan area of Iowa City? Franklin: What I've asked for, what's in the RFP. Vanderhoef: I saw the ones you listed there. Franklin: Yeah. That's what we're after then, the metropolitan area. And that was looking at those areas in which people are likely to be looking for a place to live before you get to far out and have the commute costs and transportation costs be a very high factor. It kind of got down to a question of how to get our arms around this whole thing. Vanderhoef: I know. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 15 Franklin: Because if you go to broad, if you ask to many questions, we'll just continue with the confusion that we have right now. Vanderhoef: Mmm hhm. That's where I am right now. Franklin: And so I was trying to kinda confine it somewhat reasonably. Elliott: You looked at kind of a metro area type situation. Franklin: Yeab. Mmm hmm. Because yeah, I know that there's people who commute from Washington, but are we going to take the fact that somebody can find housing in Washington and commute, maybe on a University van pool as a big factor in terms of our housing policy? Probably not. Champion: No. Franklin: So, that's what delimited the area. Champion: I think it's good. Wilburn: Makes sense. Franklin: Ok. Thanks. Council ADD ointments Wilburn: Council appointments. We had one applicant for one spot, on the Board of Appeals, Stephen Buckman. Elliott: That makes it tough. Wilburn: Is that ok with everybody? Vanderhoef: That's a reappointment. Champion: He's an unexpired term. Elliott: Yes. Unexpired term. Sounds good. Bailey: Serve an unexpired. Wilburn: We also had one applicant for one vacancy, unexpired term - Brett Gordon for the Telecommunications Commission. Vanderhoef: He's very qualified. Bailey: Sounds good. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8,2007. January 8, 2007 ITEM 17. Wilburn: Atkins: Wilburn: Atkins: Wilburn: (laughter) Wilburn: Okerlund: Wilburn: Atkins: Wilburn: Okerlund: City Council Work Session Page 16 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE U.S. HIGHWAY 6 & GILBERT STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Highway 6, Gilbert Street. This is in reference to item, agenda item 17. She's going to speak with us about this. Is Jeff Davidson here? Nope. Sarah. Sarah. Ok. Jeff is here. Ijust feel better when Jeff is here. No offense. I don't know you, Sarah, I don't know you. And I assume Sarah you're going to give us an overview? Yes, I am. Ok. And I recall Council, on tomorrow night's agenda is the acquisition of property resolutions, correct, Steve? Yes. All right. Go ahead. All right. Thanks. A little bit of a delay - sorry about that. I'm Sarah Okerlund; I'm a civil engineer up in the Engineering Department. And like Ross said, I'mjust here to give you guys a brief overview of kind of what's happened so far, what we're kind of looking at and where we're kind of looking at going. So any questions, just let me know as we keep going. So, to kind of give you an introduction of what I'll be doing. First I'm going to go through the project background a little bit. For some of you, you maybe already know all of it, to others, maybe it's new information. Then I'll kind of go over the corridor effects. I'll give you the primary project objectives. What we're looking to accomplish with this project. Where we've gotten to, our progress to date, our preliminary concept as we have it right now. And once again, this is a very preliminary concept - we're at the beginning stages of it. And also, estimated project costs and our schedule. Project background. I guess the most, as far as the recent project background, it started back in 1999, Stanley Consultants put together and examined some alternatives, but no action was taken at that time. I believe the consensus was that the pill was worse than the ill at that particular moment. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 17 (laughter) And then in 200 I we kind of, Anderson Bogart was hired to kind of give a fresh look into things, to kind of give recommendations on what they thought would be good ideas to kind of help the corridor as a whole and the two things that came out of that are widening of Highway 6 and Gilbert Street and also long term planning for alternative corridors, such as McCollister and things like that. Back in 2002 they kind of expanded on that 200 I study and provided two different concepts and two different layouts. Both included northbound and southbound dual left-turn lanes for Gilbert Street, raised medians, and also access management. One was an equal widening and another was more to the west. STP grants were allocated by JCCOG, two million dollars for the project back in FY06. 1 want to say it was 2005, and then just here in September we have hired Engineering Alliance to kind of expand on the 2002 study. Some of the corridor effects. Both Gilbert and Highway 6 are arterial roadways, which essentially is saying they're major roadways here in the city. Highway 6 is a US designated route. There are over 46,000 vehicles that use this intersection every day, and that's, that's a lot of vehicles, and that's I believe, 2002 numbers, so you can, likely it's increased since then. We've actually exceeded the capacity during PM peaks. We're running at level of service E and F, which just means it's exceeded its capacity. It's also an existing truck route, and to make our project a little more complicated, the right of way on Gilbert Street in the north-south corridor is pretty narrow, so, particularly on the north side. Some of the primary objectives given this corridor. The two main goals are to improve the functionality of the intersection and corridor safety. How do we do that? Essentially we're looking at adding dual left turn lanes on northbound and southbound Gilbert Street and also potentially on Highway 6. We're looking at some different funding sources to make that happen at the same time, just for convenience factor of the general public. In order to do that, we do obviously need to widen the road. We're adding lanes and we'll also look at adding raised medians. It's a requirement for safety when you add dual left turn lanes. We're also looking at adding a right turn lane for southbound Gilbert and I'll show you these concepts later, so it doesn't get jumbled in your head. And also, looking at some access management, and just implicating that by kind of consolidating driveways and making fewer conflict points, essentially. And again, I'll show you that down the road. So far to date, like I mentioned, we have the 2 million dollars STP funding. We've awarded the design contract to Engineering Alliance and since that award in September, they have been doing really well at getting together a preliminary concept. We also have had some owners with, just some preliminary property owner meetings. The individual property owners we met with both, like all four of the comer properties, since they're kind of gonna be the most impacted, being right on the comer, having it from all directions. And then we also met with, like had a broad overview of the corridor with, you know, kind of an open house. About 18 - 20 people showed up to that. So, and those are good too because not only do we kind ofinforrn them, you know, what we're looking at, but we also get a feel for what their concerns are. And if we can implement something now and make it a better project for everyone, the better the project's going to be, essentially. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. --_.__.,---_..---------~--_._..._----,-~~_._---'_._---+- -----_...__._~._-------_._._---_.._--------_._._._------- January 8, 2007 Atkins: Okerlund: Atkins: Elliott: Okerlund: Elliott: Okerlund: Bailey: Elliott: Champion: Okerlund: City Council Work Session Page 18 And here is the preliminary concept. Like I said, this is a very preliminary concept. We're looking at aerial photography, just rough lines on paper so people can get an idea. Kind of go through it here - this direction is north. We have Highway 6 here, and here's Gilbert Street. To kind of give you an idea, here's Pleasant Valley, here's the gas station, Hills Bank, and then Southgate actually owns the Los Portales here. What we're looking at doing is doing the dual lefts, coming through here, and then dual lefts this way. We're also, you can see this yellow, kind of darker lines, those are the raised medians. These yellow lines through here its essentially proposed edge a curb, so the backer curb. The pink lines are existing and proposed trails. We're not necessarily adding trails, but we are, since we're widening, we're having to push them back. And I'm actually going to zoom in. Just so you know, this concept, it includes concepts both for this project and also as kind of a future reference. So we've also included, like our concept from Stephens all the way to Southgate, where we don't necessarily plan on implementing that right now, but it's a good reference, and so I'll zoom in here. And here it's zoomed in a little bit. I don't know if you guys can see this real well, but you can sort of see this blue line here, that's kind of a proposed right of way. Once again, here are our dual left turn lanes. We have dual lefts, Highway 6 all the way through. Here's our raised medians. You can see we're kind of doing some access management by combining driveways, trying to center them kind of across from each other, that sort of thing. And one of the other things I'd like to point out we have in our concept here - it's kind of, sort of an access road. It kind of serves a couple different purposes. Essentially it's an alternative route out ofthe Hills Bank and this office building, and it also gives us the potential for a trailhead. Sarah, did you say all four comers are dual left? The, I'm sorry, I should have clarified. Gilbert we're proposing dual lefts for sure, and the Highway 6 we're actually, we're looking at getting additional funding from the DOT to do the dual lefts. Ok. That's what I - thank you. One question while you have that up there. Yeah, sure. Just as you're southbound on Gilbert, just prior to entering Highway 6, there's an opportunity to turn (dropped sound - can't hear) street, I forget what the name of that street is. That's Highland. Highland. Highland. I make that turn almost daily. Is that still going to be available? No. No it's not. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 Elliott: Okerlund: Elliott: Correia: Okerlund: Elliott: Okerlund: O'Donnell: Okerlund: O'Donnell: Okerlund: O'Donnell: Champion: Okerlund: O'Donnell: Okerlund: O'Donnell: Okerlund: Elliott: City Council Work Session Page 19 That's a done deal. Yeah. This will be a raised median, essentially going from Third all the way. How do you get then from Gilbert to what's off of Highland? Is there going to be a process in there where you can turn off earlier? That's really a tough, tough street to block. Kirkwood. Yeah, you'll have to come up over in this direction to go over. Ok. Thanks. Yep. Sarah, is that going to be north and south? Are we going to have that median all the way down, so if you're heading south, you can only turn right, and if you're going (cut off- end of tape). From Third all the way to the intersection, there will be no lefts. Likewise if, from Highland here you can't make a left out, you have to make a right turn, so. And over on the south leg, it extends. Essentially what we're looking at doing here is combining accesses and providing a frontage road, to serve both Carlos and Los Portales, so that kind of takes away some of these extra accesses, is kind of the goal. But, ifI'm going north and 1 want to go to, say, Nagel Lumber- Sure. And by Nagel, you're right here. And if! want to go to Pleasant Valley, I've got to go up and turn around at Nagel's and come back. No, you You can turn right here. There's a turn there? Yeah. We will allow, there will be in this proposal there's a gap in the median there at Third Street. But south of Sixth there will be no gap like that? Not until this location here, and then we would service these buildings and including the muffler place with that frontage road. Are there lights at that gap on north Gilbert there? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 Okerlund: Elliott: Champion: Okerlund: Elliott: Okerlund: Elliott: Okerlund: Elliott: Okerlund: Elliott: Okerlund: Champion: Okerlund: Champion: O'Donnell: Champion: Okerlund: Correia: City Council Work Session Page 20 This one here? Yeah. No. No. Ok. Not at this point, no. So chances are, that's not gonna be an accessible gap during busy time. Depending what we've got our queue and where you're coming from- Yeah. But, I would sure hope the queue doesn't back up that much. That's kind of part of getting those dual lefts, but. The queue is the lanes, the cars stack up. Right, how long they, how far back they stack. Yep. How wide is it, it that median? I believe in this alternative it's a 4-foot wide median. You know, that's a lot ofland. That is a lot ofland for a median. I don't understand why we need 'em, but. That's a good question, why do we need them? Cities don't have 'em. I mean, Chicago doesn't have them. New York doesn't have them. Why do we need them in Iowa City? The, when you add dual lefts, for safety reasons you're required to have a median. Michigan - (all talk - can't hear) Vanderhoef: We don't have a choice, is that what you're saying? Champion: You're right. You're right. Elliott: Yep. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 21 Okerlund: When you add dual lefts you're required, for safety reasons, to add a median. And for the remaining, like, this southerly portion, or I guess the north portion there, it's access management. It's to prevent those left turns and the extra conflict points. Elliott: I think the question is, why 4 feet? Champion: They have medians in the center of the street. They don't have them by the turn lanes. And that's what they're proposing here. Medians by the turn lanes, isn't that correct? In between the turn lanes and the traffic lanes. Baeth: No, it's still the center of the street. Bailey: The center of the street. Champion: Oh, it's the center - ok, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. Okerlund: I'm sorry - Bailey: Hence the name median. Champion: Ok. That's - I thought they were doing it (can't hear) O'Donnell: Is there a reason medians have to be that long? Bailey: Access. Okerlund: It's access management for part of it, and the other part is the length that's required for those duallefls. O'Donnell: It is? Correia: So it's like on Riverside Drive, where you have that long median, that, you know, when you're approaching Highway 6 on Riverside Drive by the? Okerlund: Sure. Vanderhoef: Mmm hmm. Champion: Yeah, I don't know why I had that so confused. I'm sorry. Elliott: It, but the question was, 4 feet, and if it could be 2 feet, then you could save I foot on each side. Okerlund: Right. And I think we can go down to 3 feet, I believe is the minimum that DOT will allow with the variance. Elliott: Oh, so there are regulations in that. Okerlund: Yeah, yep. Yep. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 22 Elliott: What you call the queue lanes, because I have many more problems with the intersection on old 218 than I do with this intersection, mainly because the stackup lanes or the queue lanes are so short. So I hope these queue lanes are going to be long. Okerlund: They will be long, so. Elliott: Good, good. That's what causes the problem at that intersection. Champion: Well yeah, that is a problem with a lot of turn lanes. Elliott: Oh, that's a much worse intersection than this for traffic, I think. Vanderhoef: It needs a longer queue lane down there. Okerlund: At Riverside? Vanderhoef: Yeah. Elliott: The next question - you talked about meeting with the property owners. What kind of input are you getting from the property owners? I was wondering why a few people were here tonight, and I. Okerlund: Sure. I would say overall, just to kind of generalize the property owners, I haven't heard any negative comments, that "hey, this intersection doesn't need improved." I think the consensus is it does. But the two main things that almost all of them are concerned about is their access. And loss of parking. So those would be the two main concerns. Elliott: Yes. I know in Coralville when they changed the intersection, whatever the main streets are there, they cut off people coming southbound off the interstate lose total access to that mini-mall there, and that's what's gonna happen here. Correia: Where? Okerlund: I guess I don't understand, I'm sorry. Elliott: In Coralville. Okerlund: On the strip? Elliott: Yeah. Okerlund: Ok. Elliott: They put in a median there and you cannot turn left into that mini-mall. You have to go clear through the intersection, go way down, and come back through the entrance to the motel, and double back in. And you know, maybe it's inevitable that's what we have to do for safety and expeditiously, but it is unfortunate. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 23 Okerlund: And I think that, if we're allowed to do this frontage road here, I think that, I mean I guess you technically would be doubling back, but Elliott: Love frontage roads. Okerlund: I think that kind of helps minimize that need for any of that wandering through other people's parking lots to get somewhere, so. Elliott: Yeah. Vanderhoef: And the way I'm reading that is Hills Bank gets a right hand turn into the property, but the access road we're talking about is probably to the back? Okerlund: Well, this would be a full functioning kind of, Vanderhoef: With a light? Okerlund: Loosely intersectioned, if warranted, so. Champion: I don't think that'll be (can't hear). But I would like to see those medians as narrow as possible. I think every foot ofland we can save buying, and save from those businesses is really important. A 4-foot median seems crazy. Make it 5 inches tall. Elliott: Yes. Vanderhoef: And you haven't looked further north on Gilbert Street to see whether there could be a frontage road put to aggregate those entrances? Okerlund: Ah, through here? Vanderhoef: Further north. Okerlund: Oh. Like up towards Kirkwood? Vanderhoef: Mmm hmm. Champion: There's not enough space. Correia: Not enough space. Okerlund: Yeah it's really tight up there. Vanderhoef: I know it is. Okerlund: And this particular project kind of ends between Second and First, by the time it ties back in, so. It would kind of be these project limits. But yeah, it's a tight corridor. In fact, I believe right through here existing, I think it's a 61-foot wide road in less than 70 foot of right of way, so by the time you add your sidewalk and those sorts of things, we're pretty tight existing, but. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8,2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 24 Bailey: So, I'm always surprised, when I'm at this intersection, that I see a lot of pedestrians, and I see the trail markings, but what's the potential impact on pedestrians? I'm assuming that we'll do countdown lights, similar to the intersections at- Okerlund: Yeah, I believe there's countdown lights there now, and those would be replaced, I mean they, we would re-use those. But I do believe there are countdown lights for crossing the highway here. Correia: It's just on the one side, though, right? Okerlund: I'm not sure how it is, existing. Bailey: I, I only see it across, yeah. Just on that one side. Vanderhoef: Just the north ~ south? Okerlund: I know that it is right there. Bailey: But there are lots of people just kind of wandering around down there. Probably going to the grocery store and other places, but. Okerlund: And we would maintain the crosswalks, certainly. Bailey: Well, I think that that's something that we have to look at as it gets wider and more confusing that all that intersection has - I mean, it's a complete street, that we do have the expectation that there will be pedestrians and probably bicyclists. O'Donnell: What, what's the easiest way on the southeast comer there, the restaurant. What's, if/'m going south on Gilbert, what's the easiest way for me to get to that? Champion: They'll have to take the frontage road. Bailey: Frontage road, yeah. O'Donnell: Not easy. Bailey: It's not really easy to turn left now, though. Okerlund: It might be easier to turn with that as opposed to trying to swerve through traffic. Champion: It's not easy to turn there now, so it might actually improve that turn. Vanderhoef: This will actually be faster, even though it takes you a little longer. O'Donnell: Oh, I don't think it'll be faster when you eliminate access. Vanderhoef: The distance is further but it'll be faster. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 Okerlund: Elliott: Okerlund: Elliott: Wilburn: Okerlund: Wilburn: Elliott: Wilburn: Okerlund: Wilburn: Elliott: Wilburn: Atkins: Dilkes: Wilburn: Elliott: Dilkes: City Council Work Session Page 25 The distance. I don't know that it'll be faster now, but I think we have to look at the future, and that's the traffic will only increase. Right. So. It's one ofthose unfortunate things. But I think too, you pointed out looking at some existing places where not exact, this exact layout, but examples where people are having to drive around for different, I mean, you can look around different types of community where it exists, and I suspect, I mean, again, we're talking about giving the go-ahead the acquire property for the intent of improving this intersection and, which will involve more conversation with some of the property owners. Definitely. I suspect up 'til now everyone's willing to approve it. When you get down to how it's going to impact me, that's when individuals and the Council will have to decide, you know, yes, it would be different, it's changed. That will be some discomfort. Actually physically changing it will create some temporary discomfort. But once it's done, what's the overall good going to be. We're going to have, is there, can the public speak on this? Well, they can speak. Tomorrow is about acquiring property. We do have the CIP, this is a CIP project, correct? Right. So, when we're talking about the budget in general, that'll be probably a- I'm concerned about fairness, and I'm concerned about possible litigation, too. I would recommend, when we get to, what day is that we're talking about CIP, 16th? 16th. 16th I would suggest that, between now and then would be some more time to ask questions, to get some more information, and then again when actually approving CIP comes up, that'll be part of the public hearing process. I hope those property owners. I think if you're gonna have that discussion, you probably just want to hold off on the resolution to acquire property, if we're gonna be having more extensive discussion on the This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8,2007 City Council Work Session Page 26 16th. I think you just need to take it as a given that there's gonna be significant and expensive property acquisition in connection with this project. It's not gonna be easy, and it's not gonna be cheap. Elliott: Thank you. Wilburn: Well, having heard that, I mean, are folks wanting to hold off on acquisition, or? O'Donnell: I would like to defer it. Elliott: I'd like to hear from these people. There may be some situation of which we're just not aware, and I'd really like to hear from them. Bailey: But what's our alternative? I mean, this intersection, and I'm not crazy about improving any intersection, I mean, myself, but that has been talked about for 5, 7 years. What's our alternative? Wilburn: That's what I was getting at. The way I'm looking at tomorrow night, and this is me personally, are we going to try and improve the intersection and take whatever consequences, positive, negative along with it, or are we gonna leave it the same. Ifwe suspect that we're going to end up leaving it the same then why bother? Vanderhoef: Well, what I see also is that we've already got our STP funds identified for this project, and certainly the DOT is looking at putting their dollars in for assisting this, since this is a federal highway. A state highway, excuse me. No, it's federal. Okerlund: Yep. Here are actually the estimated costs, ifthat's helpful to you. I don't know. But, if it is, the current estimate for breakdown, we're looking at about 1.2 million dollars in acquisition, 2.5 in construction, and then around $600,000.00 in just miscellaneous design, in-house expenses. So. Elliott: So four and a half million it's gonna be. Okerlund: Right. Elliott: I guess I'd just like to hear from the people involved. Their businesses, their livelihood. I think we owe it to them to listen to them and see if there's something. We've heard from the engineering, I think we need to hear from the people involved. Vanderhoef: Well Bob, I think those conversations probably have been started with these pre-meetings that Sarah told us about. That they've met with the individuals, and they have met as a group for the area to look at the bigger picture on all of this. We certainly have some informed people that are already here, so I say we either do it now and make this commitment so we know what we're going to be doing and so they know what we're gonna be doing. Wilburn: And certainly tomorrow night anyone who's here and anyone from the public is welcome to come forward and speak to do you think, we support the City's decision to acquire This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 27 property with the intent of improving the intersection, and we understand we have opportunity to speak later or not. Elliot: Mmm hrom. Correia: So with the proposed right now what you have, 4-foot median. Okerlund: I believe it is. Correia: So we have to have, the minimum is 3-foot. Okerlund: I believe so, yes. Correia: That, that would save some, it's not a ton of space. Okerlund: Right, right. And we're not, these lines up here aren't so exact that we can go out and purchase property tomorrow or anything like that. So. But yeah, we would definitely look into that. O'Donnell: Can you have a break in the median? Like a turn? Vanderhoef: We've got one. Bailey: That's what that is. O'Donnell: No, I'm talking south. I keep going back to this restaurant. Okerlund: For here? O'Donnell: I want to get into the restaurant. Could we have a break in the median there so I can turn - you can't have that. Okerlund: I wouldn't recommend that liecause what you, this turn lane here, the length is so that you can have capacity so that your traffic can queue and backup through here, and if you have a break in here, you're gonna mess with that flow, essentially. O'Donnell: Well, the- Correia: Because then you'd have people waiting to turn with other people behind them waiting to keep going that could back up into the intersection. O'Donnell: Well the double, the double turn lane- Correia: But that's for going out, no? O'Donnell: Well we've got a double left going there. That's going to be, that's gonna alleviate the stacking problem to a degree, isn't it? Correia: There's gonna be a lot of cars there. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 28 Okerlund: There's a significant capacity of vehicles that use that, and in particular- Correia: We have a lot of development coming in on that. Vanderhoef: Mmm hmmm. Elliott: Yeah, and Okerlund: To the south. Correia: South, so there's gonna be more, the potential more. Wilburn: I would encourage folks too as you, as you're pondering what you're willing to accept or not accept, is to look around at what's now. There's certainly lots of folks going into Taco Bell and Pizza Hut on the, further to the east here, and they don't have direct access. So. Correia: Oh, like K-Mart, sure. Wilburn: Yeah, like in K-Mart, so again Vanderhoef: They're using access. Wilburn: There'll be some change, it's something different, but there are some examples we can look at existing. Elliott: I think Mike's question though was what's the different between you have a break on the northside but not on the southside? Is that because of the traffic conditions? Okerlund: It's spacing and just the configuration. Here you're going from a dua!!eft to a short left here for coming in here to this frontage road. So there's no room for a break, essentially, plus the proximity to the intersection. Correia: So when we, the proposal, when we do this double lane everywhere, we will do that frontage road at the same time. Okerlund: Yeah, with this proposal that would be part of it, correct. Correia: (can't hear) that's part of the project, some of the other stuff is proposed later, maybe, but that's part of it. Okerlund: Right. And in fact, that kind of brings up a good point. That estimate that you saw, essentially, what it is including is improvements here to Stephens, kind of adding a turn lane, a left turn. It includes all of the improvements to Gilbert from Stephens to between First and Second, and it also includes property improvements adjacent to Gilbert. It does not include this, it does not include this work over here, and it does not include the improvements to Highway 6. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 Elliott: Okerlund: Elliott: Okerlund: Elliott: Wilburn: Okerlund: Wilburn: Okerlund: Wilburn: Okerlund: Wilburn: Champion: Okerlund: Champion: Okerlund: Champion: Okerlund: City Council Work Session Page 29 The improvements stop short of the railroad viaduct, though. I believe there might be, you're talking the one over Gilbert? Yes. Yes. It stops short of that, yeah. Ok. I'm sorry, just so I, I understood what you said too. South on Gilbert, did you say that intersection where we're going to the access, the -no, further. Further. We're at Hills Bank, right there. Yes. Did you say if traffic pattern volume warranted a light could go there, or control, or not? I believe that's, that's been the discussion so far. If it's warranted then it would be an ok place for a signal. Ok. Now I know this is probably a ridiculous question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. It won't be the first time, probably won't be the last. No question is ridiculous. Remember when we talked about double turn lanes or whatever on Kirkwood and Gilbert, because there was a huge backup problem there, and we altered that by just changing the light, the way the lights worked, and that seemed to correct that problem there. Like, it works so that southbound has the light, then northbound has a light, or whatever directions. And that's, why couldn't we correct this intersection with the same type lighting? Like if people are stacking up because the light is not long enough, why can't we change the way the lights work? This, this intersection, part of it is just pure capacity. There are a lot of vehicles that use it. I believe that we've got approximately 30 thousand vehicles a day on Highway 6. And they did a study, that 2001 study actually looked and answered that particular question, saying that the timing of the signals are optimized to the best of their ability, and there's no tweaks really that you can make to make it run better just with the signals. You actually need geometric improvements. So, does that answer your question? No. Ok. The, essentially - This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 30 O'Donnell: More cars. Okerlund: Right, there is just more cars, and to allow those cars to get through the intersection, you need the time that we've got there. So, to tweak it to make one direction go and hold the other direction back, it's just gonna stack them back that much further. And then it's gonna take forever to get them all the way through, and then you kind of have a vicious cycle, essentially. Elliott: Too busy to tweak. Okerlund: Yeah, that's a good way to put it. O'Donnell: What, what was the example of Burger King that you said? Wilburn: No, Champion: Pizza Hut. Correia: Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. Wilburn: Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, in terms of they don't have direct access off of, off of the highway there. O'Donnell: But there's a stoplight there where they get in. Champion: No. Elliott: No, you turn right into the street to go up there, don't you? Champion: K-Mart, Iowa State Bank, Pizza Hut, they don't have direct access. Correia: There's not a light. Wilburn: There's not direct access, they have to go Elliott: Oh, you mean if you're east - if you're westbound, you have to go around. Eastbound you have direct access. Wilburn: You can't pull directly into Taco Bell from Highway 6 east. Correia: You have to turn. Vanderhoef: You have to turn off. Wilburn: You have to turn, you turn in, but you still have to circle around and go back. Vanderhoef: At Boyrum. And then turn into the frontage road. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 31 O'Donnell: To the frontage road. Wilburn: To the frontage type road. Take a look. O'Donnell: Thought you could turn. Champion: No. There aren't any lights. Correia: There's not a light at that middle part. Baeth: Now, I don't know if you've been to Los Portales lately, but it's not easy to turn in there. Champion: Oh, it's awful. Vanderhoef: Oh. O'Donnell: To where? Baeth: To Los Portales, that restaurant that's in question. It's not easy to get there as it is now. Bailey: They might appreciate it. Baeth: I think any extra time it takes to take a frontage road is negligible, compared to trying to find a space in traffic to do it safely. Champion: Trying to turn. Correia: Mmm hmm. O'Donnell: Well, you have problems several times a day, you know, it's busy at noon, it's busy at 8 o'clock in the morning, and it's busy at 5 o'clock. I've never had trouble after that, you know, and every intersection is busy at 12 o'clock, and 8 o'clock and 5 o'clock. But in the afternoon - we're not talking just certain times of the day, we're talking every hour of every day. That's the difference. With more cars. Okalund: There are a lot of cars. Wilburn: Is there more to your walk through here? Okerlund: Ah, I think the only thing I was gonna kind of give you a little bit of the schedule. In case you are interested, this is what we've kind of got proposed. Right now we're in the preliminary design phase, anticipated to last until approximately spring, which includes both surveys, identifying our concept, establishing our limits, and starting property acquisition. And then our final design would essentially run from the summer into early fall and that would include all of the design of the plan, specifications, any sort of details, finalization of property acquisition ifit wasn't already completed, and then construction would be next year, probably spring through fall of '08. That's really it. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 Champion: Wilburn: Atkins: Dilkes: Elliott: Atkins: Dilkes: Bailey: Dilkes: Bailey: Dilkes: O'Donnell: Champion: Bailey: Okerlund: Dilkes: City Council Work Session Page 32 Well, I'm not sure what I'm going to do about this, but I would recommend that if people haven't done, go down that road that Ross was talking about, because that was a major shift in how those businesses were entered, when we corrected it, and it's, might be worth driving up and see how they did it. Steve, did you have any comments or concerns in terms of whether this is acted on tomorrow and/or CIP? No. We can certainly live without proceeding without with the acquisition right away. Hearing what I'm hearing, I think we ought to plan to put this on the 16th. We've got to find some means by which, because I do know the nurnber of property owners here, there are variations of opinion, and we're going to have to ultimately settle on a design, and that's when we can do the acquisition. I mean, I'd like to ask a couple questions, not tonight, so I think we need to put it on the 16th. For example, are we acquiring from, I almost said left to right side. North. East to west side of the, you know, where's this acquisitions being made, and does the design have an influence on that? I mean, that's getting pretty picky. Well, there's no- I'd certainly like - I'd like to have a time when those property owners understand that there will be a time when they can come before Council and express their observations. And I'd like to get some of that work done because of the complexities of this one. Usually what you do is a plan and spec hearing and someone can come, and we have to have that, we'll have that anyway. Well, the original- [fwe're I'm sorry. Go ahead. It had been my understanding that final design was originally planned for this spring, and that appears to have changed, so there's really no urgency to doing a resolution for property acquisition at this point. Good. And we wouldn't do property acquisition 'til we had a definite plan in mind. This is a sketchy one, right? Final design, right. Right. We can't start property acquisition until we have final plats. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8,2007. January 8, 2007 Champion: Bailey: Elliott: Atkins: Elliott: Atkins: Elliott: Atkins: Bailey: Atkins: Elliott: Bailey: Atkins: Wilburn: Elliott: Karr: Bailey: Correia: City Council Work Session Page 33 Great. Thank you. But if we're going to delay this, I think we need a plan of what, you know, when we're going to have a meeting to move it forward. I would hate to see this delayed because we don't feel like moving ahead because we want to hear from people and yet we don't create a plan to do that. Yes. And I very much agree with Regenia. I think have a time when - We need to settle on a plan, but we will get you, and in anticipation of the meeting on the 16th, a better schedule, where folks from the bank and from Pleasant Valley, they're all gonna want to have - So those people will know when they can come. Yeah. I'd like to see a timeline including that (can't hear). Except, as you know, we've had a number of informal conversations with them on a regular basis. We do need to formalize it. Oh, yeah. But then, Regenia, I agree, then let's either do it or not it. Let's create a plan to get what people need. Moving on to the 16th we'll have some idea of a schedule then for you. And there's also nothing wrong, if it's about design or access or concerns or whether this should even be done, there's nothing prohibiting anyone from coming during the public comment section tomorrow, at 7:05, 7: 10, as they can do at any Council meeting between now and then. Right. But, ok, can Ijust clarifY on that matter? Is it going to, is there a general agreement tonight to defer item 17 to a specific date, or is item 17 going to be discussed? Because I think we're going to get people wondering, if! come during public discussion, do I have to stay around for item 17, anyway. Do you see what I mean? That's a good point. Are we going to defer this or not? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 Karr: Elliott: Atkins: O'Donnell: Wilburn: Bailey: Correia: Atkins: Wilburn: Karr: Wilburn: Bailey: Champion: Karr: Champion: Wilburn: Karr: Champion: Karr: Wilburn: Karr: City Council Work Session Page 34 Because the item is on the agenda. Mmm hmm. I would recommend you defer it to the next meeting. I agree. Defer it to the next meeting. To the 23'd. If folks come they can do public comment. I mean if folks want to come tomorrow night, they're certainly entitled to, but with the understanding that you're going to defer. So it looks as if we're gonna defer it. Because people could still come for item 17. You could still defer it. It'sjust the confusion I'm having it twice on the agenda, public input and item 17. Because there's people not here tonight. Right. And where do they speak? Well, I think the public input would be on the acquisition ofland. That's all we'd be voting on tomorrow. Which would be item 17, and that's what I'm wondering. Public discussion would be on the design, I would think. Public discussion, someone, it's public comment, and they can say whatever they want. If it's not, the design, all of that, how it effects my property is not on the agenda tomorrow. I think it might be easier to just leave it with item 17 rather than public discussion. Ok. Then at that, at the end of that conclusion, Council may wish to defer it then. That's fine if there's no problem. 'Cause I'm just concerned that there's gonna be people come, say it, leave, with the understanding that it's going to be deferred, and then somebody else may come under item 17 that the people would not be able to hear. And I think that's the confusion. It is on the agenda, unless you wish to move item 17 up. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8,2007. January 8, 2007 Wilburn: Karr: Wilburn: Karr: Wilburn: Champion: Correia: Bailey: Correia: Dilkes: Correia: Wilburn: Champion: Correia: Bailey: Dilkes: Wilburn: Champion: Elliott: Bailey: Champion: City Council Work Session Page 35 I'm just thinking of other times when we've had people getting into conversation about something that, for example, the acquisition of property and comments have been made by this mayor and past mayors that this is not the subject for tonight's - We can move item 17 up. Yeah, that's not what we're voting on. You can move 17 up and take care of it, if you'd like. Then you'd avoid that whole discussion. All right. Ok. So can someone? I second it. Your question is that if somebody has, starts talking about - Concept. Concept, or the plan and it's not related to acquisition, is it really about this item. Well, I don't think that, I mean, the concept and design is related to the acquisition. I don't think that's. Ok. Can someone move to amend the agenda tomorrow by moving item 17 up closer to the (can't hear)? Well, I wouldn't move it too far, because if people look on this agenda and they see it's item 17, they're probably not gonna show up for the fIrst 40 minutes. They'll come late. That's what I'm wondering. They won't corne right away. Ijust think we leave it where it is. 40? I think you just leave it where it is. All right. That's fIne. Just leave it where it is. And then allow discussion only on the agenda item. Right, Ross? You're agreeable. Well, allow a broad discussion on the agenda item. Right. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 36 Elliott: Yeah. Wilburn: All right. Thank you. Okerlund: Thanks. Champion: It's a difficult thing - effecting people's businesses. That's the problem. Bailey: We're paid the big money to make decisions, I thought. This has been a problem for 7 years. Champion: People get their one night to sort of. Wilburn: Does anyone need a break before we go on to agenda items? Let's take a ten-minute break, back at 6 o'clock. Al!enda Items Wilburn: Agenda items? Atkins: I've got a number of staff people here if there's, for agenda items. Correia: So, I have a question. Atkins: Ok. ITEM 4c(1). Class B Liquor License for Ashford, LP, dba Sheraton Iowa City & Hotel Vetro, 210 S. Dubuque St. (Iowa City Building Official recommends Disapproval. See memo in Council packet.) ITEM 4c(4). Class B Liquor License for MIP Lessee, LP, dba Sheraton Iowa City, 210 S Dubuque St. (Iowa City Building Official recommends Disapproval. See memo in Council packet.) Correia: In the consent calendar, item 4c(I), recommending disapproval of the liquor license. As it's written in here, we would have to call that out? Karr: No, it's a recommendation to deny, so by adopting the consent calendar as presented, it would be a denial. Correia: Ok. That's my question. Atkins: If you need something from Doug, his office is- Karr: If you wish separate discussion, that's another thing. It is in the form of a denial. Atkins: Yeah. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 37 Correia: Ok. So then the other thing is that we're issuing a renewal of the dance permit in the same place? For the dance? Vanderhoef: It's new. The dance is new. Correia: Yes, but I thought the dance permit you had to have a valid liquor license to have it. Karr: You do. Correia: So, I mean, we would be issuing a dance permit - Karr: But they can't use it. Correia: They can't use it until they get- Karr: Correct. Correia: Ok. Atkins: The liquor license. Elliott: Contingent on. Correia: Ok. I just wanted that clear though. Atkins: Good point. Karr: I just want to, I just want to note, you've got another one on there. One and four. You've got a renewal and a new of the same establishment. They're both gonna be, they're both being recommended for denial. They're in the process of potentially selling, so it's on there. You've got two actions on the same establishment with two different ownerships that is being recommended denial. Correia: Ok. I see. Ok. Karr: Ok? Vanderhoef: And my question is of the same issue. Evidently there is a history of noncompliance here on some of the things that are listed in the reasons for denial, and is this the way you get compliance, or are there fines that go with noncompliance, of bringing the property? Karr: It will be a Doug issue. Wilburn: Why don't you come speak about that? Boothroy: The liquor permits a good leverage to get compliance, and so we've used that in the past to get compliance with zoning violations and building code violations. It's probably the best way of accomplishing compliance in a timely fashion. The inspection on the Sheraton occurred on November 2'd, and we have not had a re-inspection called for. We This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 38 did go up there to do a re-inspection. They were still in noncompliance and had not corrected anything, and that was over a month ago, and so there's not been any change in the status. And a number of these violations are related to exiting and safety issues. Vanderhoef: Mmm hmm. No. I understand. Are there any fines for not getting this? Boothroy: It's the best way to do it, in my opinion. Vanderhoef: Are there any fines for not getting this? Boothroy: We could fine them as well, but at this point, normally speaking, people do what they can to come into compliance so they get their liquor permit renewed. So that would work with them in 30 to 60 days to quickly get this resolved, and we'd never have to go down the road of litigation. Correia: Because without this liquor, the liquor permit, they can't serve at the bar- Dilkes: No. Well. Boothroy: I don't know how that works (can't hear) Dilkes: The renewal can take, they, even if you deny it, with a renewal it continues, until there's a final determination. Boothroy: At the state. Dilkes: At the state, and ifthere's ajudicial appeal, then it waits for that. Correia: Oh. Bailey: But they've been out of compliance on these items for two months? Since November? Boothroy: November 2'd was the inspection. Bailey: Yeah, two months. Correia: So when we vote to deny, what's the process? You're saying it goes to the state? Karr: We then notify the state of the reasons, of the fact that we denied it and the reasons. Correia: Ok. Karr: They then notify the applicant and in-lies then a procedure by which the applicant is given time to respond, a hearing may be set. There's a period oftime and some notices that are, and then in the meantime the renewal continues. The new one not being granted would mean any sale of the, any new ownership could not be transferred. Correia: Ok. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 39 Karr: It would only, in essence, allow them to continue with the current license. Correia: Ok. Well I did see in the real estate transactions that they did purchase, somebody purchased the Sheraton. Karr: Well the state I'm sure will, will be very much aware of that and will look at that as well. Because all corporations are through the Secretary of State's office. Elliott: I'm sorry, Doug, I didn't hear, what were the infractions or the non-compliance? Boothroy: Well, there was some exiting, blocked exits. There, I've got a list- Vanderhoef: Storage. Boothroy: Storage in the exitways Bailey: Extension cords. Vanderhoef: Power rooms and Boothroy: There was a sprinkler head thing. Elliott: Ok. Fine, fine. Boothroy: Things like that. As I said earlier, this is really unusual that people don't comply in order to get a favorable recommendation. This happens - I don't recall it happening before, and if it did, it's only happened once or twice before. Vanderhoef: I was gonna say - Boothroy: It's highly unusual. And we could go ahead and pursue these as a municipal infraction if we chose to, and we may have to. Dilkes: That's gonna be a lot more time consuming and complicated and etcetera, though. Boothroy: It might be. Ijust didn't know how long the state would continue with the- Correia: What would be more complicated? Bailey: Municipal infractions. Boothroy: Yeah. Correia: Say it again? Dilkes: Pursuing them as Municipal infractions. I mean, generally, it's as Doug said, it's easier to say you don't get x unless you do y. Champion: And they'll do y. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 40 Boothroy: They will do it eventually, because they will need it. Dilkes: Particularly if you're right, that there has been a sale, because the renewal at some point is not going to help them. Correia: Right. Elliott: Doug, I have - Vanderhoef: This has probably gotten tangled up with the sale, that the old property owner didn't want to go through all of the. Bailey: They still have a GM, though - this is kind of weird. Boothroy: These would be, I suppose, yeah. I don't know. Bob? ITEM 4e(2). CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM REGIME FOR LOT 12, LONGFELLOW MANOR CONDOMINIUMS. Elliott: Boothroy: Elliott: Boothroy: Elliott: Boothroy: ITEM 12. Elliott: O'Donnell: I have questions about the Longellow Court on the consent calendar and the dream home, if anybody's done with the Sheraton. Quick question on Longfellow: that is, this we're being asked to approve is agreed to by both the new owner of one property and the proposed owner of the other property? We don't have a contract to purchase the other side of that duplex, so it's just the owner of the existing half that has agreed to it. But there was something about the banker of the? Well, the, it initially started with an earlier purchase offer, and they withdrew the offer because they didn't, there was a conflict over the condominium papers and from their banker's point of view. But this is reasonable to you? This is reasonable to me, and I, while we're at it, I thought maybe, do you have a comment on the bids on the other part? CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT WITH REGAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DUPLEX HOMES UNDER THE AFFORDABLE DREAM HOME OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM. Yeah. My question on the other part, building two homes for a total of $457,00.00. Four units. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8,2007 City Council Work Session Page 41 Boothroy: Yeah, $457,625. Elliott: Oh, four units, ok. Vanderhoef: Four. That's in the. Bailey: Two duplexes. Elliott: Oh, ok. Boothroy: It comes out to about $86.67 a square foot. Elliott: Good, good. Because I looked at this as two and that made $228,000.00 a piece. Boothroy: No - it's a hell of a bid. (laughter) Elliott: Bailey: Boothroy: Elliott: Champion: Boothroy: O'Donnell: Champion: O'Donnell: ITEM 10. Champion: Trueblood: Champion: That takes care of my question. Is that a technical term? Oh, I'm sorry - that was in quotes. And it just goes to show that - I was estimating a hundred dollars a square foot and I guess it just shows that people are pretty hungry and need the work. Good deal. Good deal. That's great. Yeah. So. It is a good deal. Is everybody - I was just. Excuse me. Go ahead. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES AND PROGRAMS I was just going to ask Terry a question about parks and recs. Increases, prices. I probably don't know. What are you here for, then? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 O'Donnell: Champion: Trueblood: Wilburn: Elliott: Wilburn: (laughter) Wilburn: Elliott: O'Donnell: Elliott: Trueblood: Elliott: Baeth: Trueblood: Wilburn: Trueblood: Champion: O'Donnell: Trueblood: City Council Work Session Page 42 He's being consistent tonight, though. Yeah. Well, you know, I'm not arguing whether you should raise prices or not. I'm wondering how we compete with surrounding towns. Do you know, offhand? We try and keep a close eye on that. As a matter of fact, three or four years ago, one of the reasons that we lowered our swim pass prices was because we were getting higher, quite a bit higher than surrounding communities. We actually lowered it, kept it that way for three years. Now this next year it's proposed for a very slight increase in swim passes. We can't keep an eye on everything. We offer some things that others don't, they offer things that we don't, that kind of thing, but for the usual kind ofthings we try very much to keep an eye on surrounding areas and try to keep in line. The years that we raised them the players on other teams hit the ball harder at the City softball team. Speaking oftliat, why does it cost more for the co-ed teams then for the summer leagues? Ijust noticed for the summer league it's $345; for the co-ed teams $365, and I thought. Two different sized softballs. It's two different sized softballs, so there's more equipment. Oh, the co-eds always played with the regular softball. Is it lighting? You do the co-ed now with a large, Chicago softball? No, no. It's just, not a large one. We don't have a 16" program, or a 14" program. Well, it just, just wondering why more for co-ed than for? Is it same season length? Ross, do we have two different umpires versus one in co-ed? Two umpires versus one. Ok. There's the biggest cost. Two umpires instead of one. Why? Why is that required? Their request. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 Correia: Elliott: City Council Work Session Page 43 Two umpires for co-ed? Yeah. (all talk - can't hear) Trueblood: Elliott: Wilburn: Elliott: Trueblood: Champion: Dilkes: Wilburn: Correia: Trueblood: Wilburn: Champion: (laughter) I can find out for sure and let you know. No, no. I asked the question, you answered. That's fine. I'm telling you, it's II" and 12" softballs, and softballs cost a lot of money. Well they've changed, then. That does have something to do with it. Is an II" softball II" across? Diameter. Diameter. You need to have the umpire. No, no - circumference. Circumference. Oh, circumference. Elliott: You're playing basketball, Connie. Champion: Well, that's what I was wondering. How could you possibly not hit it? Trueblood: Do I get any credit for knowing that? Circumference. Vanderhoef: That's what we need, Connie. O'Donnell: That's good. Elliott: Are there any, are there any changes that are lowering the cost? Trueblood: One. Vanderhoef: One. Bailey: Yeah, there was one. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 44 Elliott: What? Vanderhoef: Vh huh. Elliott: Because I was unhappy when everything said changes and I thought, why don't we just be up front and say increases. Trueblood: You know it could even be argued that the swim pass fees, even though there's a slight increase, is going down because, it's difficult to explain, but in a nutshell, it costs less per swim to catch up to what it would cost you paying the daily fee. Elliott: Fine. O'Donnell: Terry, how did our account go on our swimming pools this last summer? Was it above or below the previous years? Trueblood: I believe it was slightly above. O'Donnell: Above. Trueblood: I believe it was slightly above. Champion: Especially City Park Pool. They're feeling friendly. O'Donnell: I'mjust curious. I'mjust wondering how much, how much the water park in Coralville that had drawn away from our free swims, but apparently it hasn't done anything. Champion: It's too expensive. Bailey: I'm tired of water parks. Trueblood: Well, we're putting together some information on that so we can do a year-by-year comparison, and I just can't give you a precise answer right now. O'Donnell: Ok. Thank you. Correia: I have to tell you, I was at the Coralville pool sometime in the summer, and it's kind of hard to keep track of little kids. Bailey: I heard that from parent, too. Correia: You know, from taking my kids to the City park pool, it was much easier to keep track. There's the noise, and the obstructions. O'Donnell: Which did the kids like better? Correia: Well I don't- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8,2007. January 8,2007 City Council Work Session Page 45 Bailey: Who cares. I'm drivin' (laughter) Correia: They had fun at the City park when they were little. O'Donnell: The kids love the slide. Wilburn: Other agenda items? O'Donnell: I had #9. Correia: I don't think I'd take them every day, just every once- Vanderhoef: Just something while Terry is still up there. I see that you've got like 8 or 9 new programs. All for Scanlon Gym? Trueblood: Most of them, yeah. Vanderhoef: How are these being developed, and are parents looking for these kinds of programs that you're adding, or are they staff-generated. Trueblood: They're both. I would say the majority of them are staff-generated, but we have started some up simply because parents or others have requested or put in an idea in the suggestion box or talking to a supervisor or whatever, that we might want to try such and such program. I can't tell you which were staff-generated and which came from parents, but it's both. Bailey: I said this to Terry in the lobby, but I'm gonna say it here too. I love the fact that we're doing birthday parties. I think that's just a really nice thing, and I bet parents would really like that. Vanderhoef: That's the thing that the rest of the community is doing, is birthday parties. Bailey: Really? Completely clueless. Vanderhoef: Restaurants and so forth. Bailey: Oh, yeah. Vanderhoef: You know. Parents. Bailey: But this is healthy. Vanderhoef: Yeah, this is healthy activity. Well just tell staff that I'm pleased that they're trying new things out there, and recognize that some will work, and maybe some won't work, but that's ok. Trueblood: I'll be sure and tell them that. I'll tell them I took all the credit. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 Wilburn: O'Donnell: Bailey: Baeth: City Council Work Session Page 46 Mike, you had a question on #9? No, I read further and answered my own question. That's clever. I had a question - couple questions. (cut off - end oftape) ITEM 9. Dilkes: Baeth: Dilkes: Bailey: Dilkes: Bailey: Baeth: Dilkes: Correia: Dilkes: CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ENTITLED, "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED, "PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS," SECTION 4, ENTITLED, "REGULATION OF PERSONS UNDER LEGAL AGE" TO PROVIDE THAT SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE VIOLATIONS MAY BE BASED ON A PRIOR CONVICTION UNDER AN ORDINANCE FROM ANOTHER CITY OR COUNTY IN IOWA. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) What was your question, are there any fee increases? What is the, there is a fee increase, correct, for a second offense compared to a first offense? Yeah, it goes from $200 to - $500. $500, I think. Yeah. We did that this year. And do, is there any sort of estimation of how many offenders this would effect? Oh, I think very few. It just came to our attention because we had a second offense that was from, it was a second because it was a City offense, some other city. Although I can imagine that, I think University Heights has a PAULA, so that would be one that would be covered here, but it hadn't come to our attention for awhile, but it needed to be fixed. So there's not a lot of cities and counties, you're saying, that have city ordinances. It would only. That's not typical. The typical situation we have is whether it's a state, whether it's been charged as a state offense by our folks or charged as a city offense. Usually they're charged as a city offense. If it's charged as a state offense we don't, we don't think there should be any difference between whether someone's charged with the second, based on whether it was written as a state charge or a city charge the first time. That doesn't make any sense. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8,2007 City Council Work Session Page 47 Correia: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Bailey: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Wilburn: Dilkes: Baeth: Dilkes: Baeth: Dilkes: Gotcha. There's a stream of information available that we would routinely tap into to determine if there had been a previous offense other than here. Yes. And we would do that routinely. Well, typically what we check probably wouldn't pull that up, but sometimes it does come to our attention and - actually, no, we do courts online, and so we do pick those up. Yeah. Would that be just in-state or is that? Out of state. It could be out of state but we won't pick that up in our general search. I guess I'mjust, my only concern is that everyone is treated identically. And that was ours too, and that's - So that we would check in to everyone, and not just certain ones. To see if there's a previous offense elsewhere. I'm not gonna be able to tell from the search we do whether someone has a first offense, simple misdemeanor in California. No, but- I mean, that's just not something that we take the time to do. But if there is a first offense that we're aware of in Iowa, we want to be able to charge it as a second offense. And you check courts online to do that. Uh huh. Yeah. So that penalty's assessed after the ticket has been issued? Pardon me? The penalty is assessed after the ticket has been issued, correct, so in other words, if somebody's caught for a PAULA, right on the spot, does the officer have a way to find out if that's a second offense? Are they given that fine at the time? No. They ticket them and then we check those. We check courts online for the name and we amend it to a second if it's a second offense. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 Baeth: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Wilburn: Bailey: O'Donnell: Elliott: Bailey: Correia: Dilkes: Baeth: Champion: Elliott: Champion: Bailey: Dilkes: City Council Work Session Page 48 Ok. Good. And that's done routinely. Yes. We do that routinely. Good - good. Other agenda items? I have a- I don't really understand what, this is possession underage? So what would, how do you mean - I'm having trouble. What do you mean are they, everybody treated equally? I'mjust saying that we don't say, oh, I think this person has another one. We routinely tap into that information stream. I've seen this person before. For every person. Right. No, we don't, in other words, we don't rely on the officer in the street to remember whether this person, or figure out whether that person's been charged before. You know, along with being treated equally, I'd like to bring up one thing, and first of all I'd like to say that I will take the possibly politically unpopular position among my constituents and support this. But I would like to look, for us to think about how we punish people monetarily, especially students. It doesn't necessarily give an equal penalty among them. For some, they call their daddy on the phone and that fine is paid off within seconds, and for others, they work who knows how many hours at wherever they are to be able to pay them off. And so I think especially with the second offense, that gives an indication that maybe we have a problem here, that this person has a problem, and I'd like us to sometime maybe look at the option of providing some sort of measure to help their problem. Say instead of an increased offense, mandate that they go to a rehabilitation program. That's a great idea. Mmm hmm. That's a great idea. In lieu of a fine. If they can prove that they go to this rehab thing. Not in lieu of all of the fine. In lieu of some of the fine. Well it's my understanding, I've been contacted by Mr. Nakhasi, who I believe is part of student government, and he has a proposal to defer prosecution of PAULA offenses in exchange for community service. There are a lot of issues there that he and I have discussed and that you all will have to consider if student government does bring that to This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8,2007 Baeth: Champion: Elliott: Champion: O'Donnell: Correia: Wilburn: Champion: Correia: Bailey: Wilburn: Correia: Bailey: Champion: Correia: Bailey: Wilburn: Dilkes: City Council Work Session Page 49 you. I mean, we're talking about a lot of, a lot of hours of community service, kind of an administrative nightmare in managing it. One of the things I have suggested to him is that with public intoxification, the state code provides that if you don't have any offenses for two years, you can ask that that be expunged from your record. There is no similar thing for P AULAs. That might be something they could pursue at the state level. But anyway, that may be coming to you. Right. It would be easy for us to implement, I'm not worried about the first offense - they can pay that fine, and I hope they've learned their lesson. Yes. But the second offense, I don't know, I kind of like the idea of saying you have 6 months to go through this MECCA program or whatever program, and then you won't have to pay that $500. Can we do that? We'll have to figure out how much that MECCA program would cost. There are budgetary considerations with that too. What are you talking, ballpark, like 30 thousand hours or something with are? I'm not talking about community service. No, she's not talking about- She's talking about treatment. Oh, ok. I mean, some of it, it's gonna cost money for an evaluation, and it would cost money for treatment. There's gonna be something that- Who contracts and pays for that I guess is fundamental. I just threw MECCA out there, I'm not. Right. But that's a fine example. You'd be using somebody similar. Either way, both examples, there'd be budgetary considerations, wouldn't there? Oh yeah, there are. But you probably want to, this is a big topic. You probably want to schedule it for another - for a specific time if- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8,2007. January 8, 2007 City Couucil Work Session Page 50 Elliott: I'd like to do that. I think your suggestion is good. And I'm much more in favor of the MECCA, whether you call it rehab or what, than community service, with a set time to do it and if you turn in a certification of completion, your fine for subsequent offenses. Baeth: Well and this does bring up a whole different topic and it probably will take longer than what we have tonight, is the first offense issue. But I guess I'll preface it for further discussion, is that, say you have somebody who messes up their first time here at the University. That can ruin your chances at getting into a professional program. One small little mistake. And I've been working with Nakhasi now lately and we're developing a proposal that would allow these offenders to make right with the community through volunteerism or I guess, if you'd prefer, through a MECCA type program to give them a chance to, well, give them a second chance. The second chance would be a fine, and would be the usual, possibly, so that they don't ruin their future after one screwup. Wilburn: Well perhaps Dilkes: I think you've over - yeah, I have to say, I think you've overstated the case. We have checked with both the law school and the medical school as to what effect one PAULA offense would have and it's nothing. Bailey: And they can always go to business school. Dilkes: But again, this is a bigger discussion that we need to have, and we're kind of off the topic on the agenda so we probably should - Wilburn: What I - what I was gonna suggest was if you or that group comes forward, then you can ask for a work session item. We can put it on for a work session and then you all can answer those types of questions, whether it's budget, or evidence on how it exactly impacts people in the long term. Vanderhoef: I would ask you to explore while you're, before you bring it to us, that the offender pay for the rehab treatment. Champion: Well they do - Kirkwood has a program for drunk driving that the offender pays for and it's compulsory, you have to go for it. The same sort of thing could be arranged through Kirkwood. Wilburn: And I would suggest if anyone has any other ideas that they would like to hear back from them, let Austin know after the meeting and they can put that all together when they request a work session so we're not going further than we should tonight. Baeth: Thank you for your time. Wilburn: Any other agenda items? 4e(1) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH IOWA REALTY COMMERCIAL TO SELL AND/OR LEASE This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 51 PROPERTY IN AVIATION COMMERCE PARK TO EXTEND THE TERM BY ONE YEAR AND CHANGE THE PRICING MODEL. Bailey: On the consent calendar, it's 4e(1). Ijust have a question about when do we seek services from another professional. We're renewing this contract and I don't have any complaints about the particular realtor we're with, but is this just standard that we continue to renew a contract with a particular firm, or when do we reexamine that? Atkins: There's no hard and fast rule. I think they're satisfied with Harry and that's simply an expression of that. But there's no real rule on doing it. Bailey: All right. Vanderhoef: This is what Airport Commission recommended. Bailey: Right. Vanderhoef: So. Correia: Are you done with that one? Bailey: I'm done with that one, but I have another one. Correia: I just have a question related to the sale of that lot. Does that, that sale, can that have an impact on their ljeneral fund allocation? Vanderhoef: The rent. Correia: Whatever. Bailey: Because they're losing rent, leases. Vanderhoef: They're losing rent. Correia: Oh, that's true. This one's a bad one for that. Never mind. Atkins: Yeah. Ok. Wilburn: Regenia, you had another item? 4f(7) Jack Hatch: Livable Communities Bailey: Yeah, I had, I just wanted to get more information about this legislation proposed by Senator Hatch. Do you know anything more about this Ross, or Steve? Vanderhoef: I went to that meeting. Bailey: Oh, or Dee. Of course. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8,2007. January 8,2007 City Council Work Session Page 52 Vanderhoef: And they were looking for input. I have not studied the bill yet, I'm sorry to say. Bailey: On, on its face, it looks like it would be something very beneficial for Iowa City, given that we have two cultural districts, and it calls those out for particular benefits, so I would just like an opportunity to discuss this at some point as part of some legislative priorities or revisiting our legislative priorities. I know that it probably won't appear in this form, but this, on its face, looks like it could be very good for Iowa City. Vanderhoef: I'd like to put it on the work session, and then I have another one that has arisen in the last few days, and it has legislative possibilities also. So if we put that on a next work session, a time where we could talk about our legislative possibilities. Bailey: Could we have a legislative update on our next work session, perhaps the commercial tax group will have - I mean, they're supposed to be done with their work next week. Is that feasible? Wilburn: Update as in, whoever has information? Bailey: Talking about these two items and then maybe possibility of talking about what's coming up. Wilburn: Sure. Vanderhoef: And another one Atkins: What do you want to call that - I'm sorry, Dee, what was that? Wilburn: Legislative update. Champion: Legislative issues. Atkins: Legislative update. Ok. Vanderhoef: I would, I would suggest that we also hear about the DOT study on transportation and dollars that this report is now out. We've seen the first comments coming out ofthe paper - there was an editorial in Sunday's Register. Bailey: Right. Vanderhoef: And I have a copy of the bill but I have not studied it either. So, we could get Jeff, I asked him tonight and he said he would run through it, so I think it would behoove us to get ourselves educated on what's being suggested. Wilburn: Other agenda items? ITEM 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BUDGETED POSITIONS IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY INCREASING THE This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 53 PROGRAM ASSISTANT POSITION FROM .50 TO .63 FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS (FTE). ITEM 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE IOWA CITY 2006.2010 CONSOLIDATED PLAN (AKA. CITY STEPS) TO CLARIFY THE PERCENTAGE ALLOCATED TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) ANNUAL ENTITLEMENT AND ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. ITEM 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING IOWA CITY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROG~AM (HOME) INVESTMENT POLICIES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 05-213. Correia: Anybody have any questions on that CDBG and HOME? Vanderhoef: The only question that I had - (can't hear - sound drop out) Correia: Karin stayed the whole entire time? Bailey: Well, I want Karin to take a look at this bill too and see what you think from economic development and cultural districts. Vanderhoef: I'm not clear the way it states where the money is going to go that's perhaps not used by ED. Correia: Goes back into the pool, isn't it? Champion: Goes back into the pool. Bailey: Yeah. Or the. Wilburn: I'm gonna step away from the table due to a conflict of interest. Franklin: Any money which is not allocated to ED which this year, because we are at $330,000.00 right now in the ED fund, we will not be making an allocation in the round that's coming up for fiscal year '08 funds, because of the cap of 250 that you put on it with this action. So what would happen is that those CDBG funds that would otherwise go to ED will go in the pot with all of the other CDBG funds and will be available for the general purposes that CDBG is used for. Vanderhoef: Except Aid to Agency, because that's a set- Franklin: Right, but that's, yeah, right. Correia; Right. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8,2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 54 Franklin: This is, all those other set-asides. Bailey: For HCDC. Franklin: Taken care of. Yeah. Elliott: That was my understanding when we discussed. Champion: Right. Bailey: Yeah. Franklin: Yeah. Vanderhoef: Well I thought I had it in my head, but then when I read it it was like MMMmm, am I sure about this. Ok. Correia: That it? Vanderhoef: No problems. Wilburn: Regenia, I will have a conflict of interest on items 14, 15, and 16 tomorrow night. Bailey: Right. Ok. Wilburn: Any other agenda items? Anyone want Council time? Council Time O'Donnell: We don't have Channel 2. Wilburn: We have Channel 2 from Rock Island. Bailey: We have Channel 2. It's not KGAN. Correia: We have Channel 19. O'Donnell: I want KGAN. Is there gonna be any kind of refund for that? Champion: No, probably not. Elliott: Are you kidding? Correia: I can call them up. Bailey: We get the Quad Cities - actually, that's probably worth more. O'Donnell: I don't know. I paid for Channel 2, I think I should have Channel 2. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 Champion: Wilburn: Bailey: Wilburn: Bailey: Correia: Wilburn: Bailey: Champion: Bailey: Wilburn: Correia: Bailey: Wilburn: Bailey: Wilburn: Bailey: Elliott: Wilburn: O'Donnell: Wilburn: Correia: Wilburn: Correia: City Council Work Session Page 55 Well I have- Stay tuned. I have a question. Yes. You put, and I don't remember what info packet it was, a smoking memo, from the University? Oh yeah. I'm sorry? The smoking policy from the University. Yeah, we got that one. Were you suggesting that we look at something similar for the City? President, Acting President Fethke sent it to me, FYI, I was sharing it with the rest of you. Well I'd be interested in discussing it. You had no agenda? I, if someone wanted to. Except sharing. To share. At that point I just had sharing mentality. If- A little bit surprised. Ok. You just love to share. It's all about sharing, isn't it? Anyone else want Council time? Game time. All right. Well I just have an article about Universal Design. Oh, Ijust said see -no, go ahead. Sorry - so fast. I'm just handing it out. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007. January 8, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 56 Bailey: Apparently there's something going on later tonight some people care about. Correia: It was in the New York Times yesterday about a development - I thought people might find it interesting. Wilburn: Thank you. See you tomorrow night. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of January 8, 2007.