Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-20 Transcription #2 ITEM 2 Wilburn: Karr: Wilburn: Garda: Wilburn: Garda: Wilburn: Garda: Wilburn: Page I PROCLAMATION. Dance Festival Week - April 8-15, 2007 (reads proclamation) Here to accept the proclamation is Nora Garda. (applause) Nora, if you wanted to say something about the festival, feel free to. Okay, can you hear me now? Well, thank you very much to all of you for making this event even more special. We started with a little idea two years ago, and today we have a group coming from Spain, a group coming from California, and more than 15 groups from the State ofIowa. We have groups from Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Cedar Falls, urn, Coralville, Iowa City, you name it. We have a little of everything. We're going to have events for everybody. It's open all levels. It's just a (unable to understand) for fun. Three days full of activities, two pages of activities already, but the whole event starts on April 2nd, so we're going to be going to schools, Senior Center, urn, Recreational Centers, University ofIowa Hospitals and Clinics. We're going to be everywhere. The kids from Spain are going to be running with us from town to town, or from place to place. It's going to be great. Join us! We're going to have buttons for sale. $25.00 admits you to all the events during the week that we have in April. So, you're more than welcome to join us. We will wait to see you! And, I thank you very much for making this proclamation. I thank you, and my understanding is that this evening in Milwaukee there is a (unable to understand) performed by a faculty member. Yes, yes! .... University of Iowa Dance Department, so congratulations to them, as well. Thank you. Thank you very much! You bet. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #3 Page 2 ITEM 3 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. Bailey: Move adoption. Vanderhoef: Second. Wilburn: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? There is... we are setting a public hearing on April 3rd on plans, specs for a contract for replacement of a water main project, urn.. .at Golfview Avenue, University Heights, Dewey Street, Laurel Street, and Carol Street, and a public hearing for water main replacement on Newton Road. Roll call. Item carries 6-0. (Champion absent.) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #5 ITEM 5 Wilburn: Franklin: Wilburn: Franklin: Page 3 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. a) AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT PLAN, TO OUTLINE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS FOR RUPPERT ROAD. 1. PUBLIC HEARING This is a public hearing (pounds gavel). Public hearing is open. Okay, this item, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the next item, which is the rezoning, are related. Do you want to discuss them together? Uh, is that okay with the Council? Okay. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment that's being proposed updates language that is currently in the Plan to reflect improvements that have occurred in this area, this Aviation Commerce Park area, which is the area that is just north of the Airport, and south of development along Highway I west. It recognizes the limitations of the property, in terms of visibility, to the highway because it's tucked back in behind these businesses on Highway I. It sites the area as a possibility, excuse me, a possibility for enhancements to bring Miller Avenue south to connect to Ruppert Road, which then would potentially address those visibility issues, and enable this area to develop for CC2. However, because that is not done yet, because it's not done yet, the area does not have the ability...the visibility that would be appropriate for it to succeed for CC2 right now. The Plan Amendment enables either the commercial intensive zoning, or the community commercial zoning, the retail, in this location. So, that's the language changes on page 24 of the South Central District Plan, that are before you for that resolution item. Okay? The rezoning then is for Lots 1,5,6, and 7, which are in the crosshatched area shown on the map. This is to rezone these properties from CC2 to cn. If you recall when we first contemplated having this area for sale, the idea was that it was going to be for commercial intensive uses because of the visibility issues to Highway I. Then when Wal-Mart project was before us, it changed the dynamics of this area considerably, in that Wal-Mart was going to buy 20-plus acres in the western portion of this property. That, that then would introduce a retail use that would be a magnet for this area, and so we rezoned the entire area to CC2 to accommodate the Wal-Mart project, as well as to anticipate the further development ofthe area for retail, because of that magnet. Now with the change, with Wal-Mart not being there, with there not being a retail magnet, urn, it no longer has that draw that is going to make the retail succeed, and so now what we're looking at is potential changes here, and much ofthis is based on the fact that we have a purchase offer, a purchase offer on Lot 7, and a potential purchaser of Lot 6, both of whom are cn uses, commercial intensive, and that is reflective This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #5 Elliott: Franklin: Elliott: Franklin: Elliott: Franklin: Elliott: Franklin: Wilburn: Franklin: Wilburn: Dilkes: Page 4 of the fact that, again, we really, the realistic situation here is that we do not have that visibility from Highway I that is going to make this area attractive for commercial retail. When this was before the Planning and Zoning Commission, there was some concern about changing this back and forth, which is understandable, and the question was raised, 'Would we do this in the private market, if this were not publicly owned land?' And I think that we would, with those changes in the dynamics, because when you take that factor out of there being the Wal-Mart there, which is that high traffic generator, high magnet for retail, urn, it really changes the dynamics of what the property can develop for. So, that is the justification for making this change to the zoning, and making a change to the Comprehensive Plan. Other questions? I have a question. Is... you said it was Miller Street that would go on through? Miller A venue, yeah. Miller Avenue, is that.. . Potentially, that is an idea, and the reason, Bob, is because that's a signalized intersection. I'm just wanting to get a little geography in there. Is that the last street, prior to heading up the Benton Street Hill? Okay. And would you, offthe top of your head, can you tell me what businesses that would go. . . so I can place that in my mind. I think it's Godfather's is the only.. . and it's that one, right there. Okay. Go straight through there.. .good. Thanks. Yeah. Actually, Council, before the rest of you ask questions, I'm going to invite members ofthe public to step forward to speak to the public hearing. That'll give Karin a chance to gather her voice back. Thanks! Just leave that up, and then after members of the public speak to the hearing, I'll ask if anyone has any ex -party communications. Why don't we reverse the order of those, so that people can respond if they have responses to the ex-party communications. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #5 Wilburn: Elliott: Wilbum: Elliott: Wilburn: Elliott: Franklin: Elliott: Correia: Elliott: Franklin: Bailey: Franklin: Page 5 Okay, all right. So, ex-parte communications first. Okay. At this time, do any Council Members have any ex-party communications that they should disclose? My only other question was visibility and that was... This is ex-parte communication that you've had with someone. I just want a clarification. Oh.. .you want to divulge any secret communications we have had. (laughter and several talking) No? (several talking) Any members ofthe public? Okay, Bob, go ahead. The visibility, when the visibility, it said here that the development depending on street access and visibility, that means only the visibility for purposes of potential customers, consumers, people wanting to get to that business, or is it for aesthetic purposes? Oh, no, it's just for the customers that with retail it's very important to have that visibility. Yeah. You mean visibility from Highway 6? Yeah. Highway 1, yeah, which is the major traffic area where you would attract people from. That's why along the highway you typically would have your retail and then back you have those more commercial intensive, which don't rely so much on people just passing by. And so if that's the basis for this rezoning, why aren't we taking it all back to Cll ? Well, because of the potential, well, first of all, we've got over in this area the CC2 that abuts this, depending upon what happens here, because you all know we've had some change in this particular area with Cub Foods closing, but presuming that this continues as a commercial retail center, and depending upon what goes in there, that could result in this area to the west being more attractive for the commercial retail, because then it would, if another use were to come in where Cub Foods is, that is a real attractor. There's the potential then for making the area immediately to the east of it attractive for commercial retail. There's that part of it, and also, if you bring Miller Avenue down and this is just a possibility. We've had no discussions with property owners and haven't pursued that, but This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #5 Bailey: Franklin: Bailey: Franklin: Correia: Franklin: Elliott: Page 6 rather than preclude it, the Comp Plan change allows both to happen. If Miller Avenue were to be brought south, and connect with Ruppert Road, that then gives you a signalized intersection, which could change the dynamic ofthese properties in here. At some point, we would expect that this... this is zoned en right now, which reflects history as opposed to the future, that this would redevelop. This is Hames. It is not the highest and best use for that property. There's essentially one building on this property right here, and the rest is manufactured housing that are essentially parked there. That sort of use is not the ideal use to have on a major highway. It's too valuable ground. And so we expect that at some point that is going to redevelop. If Miller were brought down, and connected with Ruppert, it would enable this entire area between Highway I, Ruppert Road, and Miller to be much more attractive for the commercial retail. And we believe that doing this area as Cll wouldn't cause a problem down the road? It's still appropriately... No, no. And what about the letter that we had from Alexis Park Inn and Suites about the screening and that issue? Partly that, that whole issue got confused with the covenants that were placed, a covenant discussion that was happening at the Airport Commission. What the Airport Commission had on here, or actually the Council had it because you would have ultimately approved those, were covenants that restricted there be no outdoor storage at all on this site, and the owners of Alexis Park were concerned that because this lot is right next to them and they have had some issues with a neighbor, that they did not want to have the same thing occurring immediately east of them. Now, in our Zoning Code now for outdoor storage, there are certain screening requirements which wouldn't allow what is happening next to them to happen. So there's that part of it. But, the Airport Commission also recently released the covenants on everything in here, except this lot, because of the concerns of the owner of Alexis Park. So on this lot, no outdoor storage will be permitted. That's adjacent to the.... To the hotel, yeah. Karin, for your information, I drove by there on the way here tonight. I assume I'm looking at the lot in question, and it could use swept up, but it appears that everything has been removed. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. ~ P~7 Franklin: And I think it might have changed ownership recently, too. Elliott: It looks like something happened. Bailey: Covenant runs with the property. Franklin: Right. There is a covenant on this entire development, except for Lot 7, well, the covenant is on the entire property right now, that you cannot have outdoor storage. You will be getting a recommendation from the Airport Commission at your next meeting on April 3rd to release that covenant for all of this area, except for Lot 7. Bailey: Got it. Okay. That helps a lot. Vanderhoef: My question has to do more with, it ties in with this covenant, which also is, uh, connected with how we put conditional zoning agreements together when someone is requesting a zoning change for a specific property, and since this area is in transition, I wondered if that was a more appropriate way to go about it until we have a better idea how much intensive commercial wants to go in there. Franklin: Urn, I'm sorry I'm not quite following. In terms of what would you want as part of that condition? Vanderhoef: Well, the screening most definitely. Franklin: The screening is required by Code now. Vanderhoef: Right. Up to a certain point, but... Franklin: There's screening that's required between the lots, between any outdoor storage and the public right-of-way. So there would.. .ifthere were outdoor storage say in the back of this lot, you would have to have screening on all sides here, plus anything that was visible from the road would need to be screened. Vanderhoef: How about the back of the lot? Franklin: Yes. You would have to have it on the back too. If you've got outdoor storage here in this area that I'm showing... Vanderhoef: Uh-huh. Franklin: .. .you would need to screen around that on the perimeter ofthis lot so that it was not seen from this lot, from Gateway, or from this lot. Now, typically what happens when people have outdoor storage, they put in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #5 Page 8 behind the building so that you don't have to worry about it up in the front. So, when I went and talked with the Airport Commission when they were concerned about the covenants, the point that I was making was that the Code has changed since this was originally put together, such that there are screening requirements for outdoor storage now that were not in place before, urn, that we believe will take care of any visual issues at street level, or at ground level. It will not take care of any visual issues flying in, obviously. Well, that was one thing that they had talked about. Okay? Does that answer your question, Dee? Vanderhoef: Yeah. I was reading to see if there was one more question, but I think I've got in answered. Wilburn: Anyone from the public? (pounds gavel) Public hearing is closed. 2. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION O'Donnell: Move the resolution. Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell. Bailey: Second. Wilburn: Seconded by Bailey. Any further discussion? Roll call. Item carries 6-0. (Champion absent.) b) REZONING APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES LOCATED ON RUPPERT ROAD WEST OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC2) ZONE TO INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CIl). (REZ07-00001) 1) PUBLIC HEARING Wilburn: This is a public hearing. (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. Dilkes: I thought we had combined the public hearings? Wilburn: Ah, that's true. I didn't realize I could close both public hearings. Okay. All right. Dilkes: Yeah. You can close this one and we'll assume... Wilburn: All right. (pounds gavel) Public hearing reclosed. 2) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #5 Page 9 Bailey: Move first consideration. O'Donnell: Second. Wilburn: Moved by Bailey, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Bailey: I'm actually glad to see this area going back to CI-l. I think it's a good use for it, and I think we need some more opportunities for CI-l. So I'll be supporting this. Vanderhoef: I'll be supporting this, 00, for a couple of reasons. One, that I think it's good to get the land back into use and this will certainly do that, and interestingly enough, there was no one who came to the public hearing to speak otherwise. So, it apparently has support of the surrounding property owners there that could have, and didn't, chose to object to it. Bailey: Well, and I feel that our new screening requirements and the covenant on Lot 7 address... that addresses the issues that Alexis Park Inn brought forward, and I certainly did consider that. Vanderhoef: I was going to ask it if you hadn't. So, that cleared that up! Wilburn: Roll call. Carries 6-0. (Champion absent.) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #5 Page 10 ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. d) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.03-ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1902 & 1906 BROADWAY STREET FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO-I) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) (REZ06-00028) (PASS AND ADOPT) O'Donnell: Move adoption. Vanderhoef: Second. Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion, and again, we can begin with any ex-parte communication. Elliott: Yes, Karin and I had a secretive telephone conversation in which she explained to me some of the questions I had. My questions only regarding the 35-foot wide and the 50-foot wide, and she explained the differences, and this will go with a 35-foot wide buffer. Wilburn: Okay, and my anticipation would be that Karin will say that she had an ex- party communication and not a secretive communication. Discussion? Correia: I wish this would stay at CO-I. I think being consistent with our philosophies and our zoning code, to have CO-I to be a buffer to residential. I'm disappointed in the change going through. Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries...uh, I've got to do my math here...um, thank you, 4 to 2, Correia and Bailey in the negative. (Champion absent.) Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Wilburn: (several talking) Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoefto accept correspondence. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Carries 6-0. (Champion absent.) Is Connie okay? Karr: She's out oftown. Wilburn: Oh, okay. All right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #5 Page 11 ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. e) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MOUNT PROSPECT ADDITION PART IX, lOW A CITY, IOWA. (SUB07-00001) Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Correia: Second. Wilburn: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Correia. Discussion? Bailey: As Amy suggested last night, I think we're going to go speak to...students who brought forth the petition and talk with them about their concerns about this development in the area. I think it's great to see young people considering zoning issues, and I look forward to talking to them and reporting back about our conversation. Wilburn: Yeah, I think this is a result of my doing the Junior Achievement classes with them out there two or three years ago, talking about zoning. So.. .I'll take a little bit of credit. Elliott: Oh, Ross, you're a whiz! (laughter) Bailey: Whatever gets 6th graders talking about zoning! Wilburn: And they have hard questions too! Bailey: Yeah, well, it's going to be a tough conversation, I'm sure! Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries 6-0. (Champion absent.) Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Bailey: So moved. Wilburn: Moved by Bailey. Correia: Second. Wilburn: Seconded by Correia to accept correspondence. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. 6-0. (Champion absent.) I apologize for pronouncing your name incorrectly, Amy. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #6 Page 12 ITEM 6 AMENDING TITLE 3, ENTITLED "CITY FINANCES, TAXATION AND FEES," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENAL TIES," SECTION 3-4-5, ENTITLED "SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL" OF THE CITY CODE TO INCREASE OR CHANGE CERTAIN SOLID WASTE CHARGES. a) PUBLIC HEARING Wilburn: This is a public hearing. (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. This proposed ordinance would increase solid waste collection fees by approximately 8%. Current fee is $13.00 per month. The increase would be to $14.00, effective July 1,2007. This action is necessary due to annual increases in operational costs. Discussion, or I'm sorry, public hearing? (pounds gavel) Public hearing is closed. b) 'CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Vanderhoef: Move first consideration. Wilburn: Moved by Vanderhoef. O'Donnell: Second. Wilburn: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Bailey: Can we just have an outline of those operational costs so citizens have a better understanding of what those entail? Atkins: Refuse collection, residential collection program, recycling. That's it. Bailey: So what costs, what expenses in those programs are motivating this increase? Atkins: Generally speaking, it's an operational cost. We've averaged, as I think I shared with you last evening, on average it's about a 2% increase over the life of our, urn, refuse fees over the last few years. This year I was just noting in the budget, we do have to purchase a new, we are going to be purchasing an additional automated refuse collection truck. That's the single-person, that's $90,000. We'll be expanding rather significantly our roll out to the curb refuse collections, carts as well, and that's another $55,000. So we've got two kind of pretty big items that we plan to do this year. Bailey: And our program pays for itself? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #6 Atkins: Bailey: Atkins: Bailey: Atkins: Elliott: Atkins: Elliott: Atkins: Elliott: Atkins: Elliott: Atkins: Page 13 And our program.. .yes it does, it pays for itself, correct. Okay, and so this isn't necessarily a reflection of increased gas cost or... There's a little bit of that. What we decided to do in the 07 budget was to spend down the reserve in 07 and 08. By 09 it should begin to return to its normal level for that fund. And how much reserve do we typically want to maintain in this solid waste fund? About 20%, yeah. Is there an offsetting reduction in costs for the landfill, because a significant increase in proportion is being...is being deferred? We have not, in fact, that's one of the reasons we're going to be having a recycling discussion with you. We have not seen in our recycling program, I believe, sufficient increases. It's pretty well flat-lined for the last four or five years, with just natural growth in the community, both business/industry, as well as residential. We see our landfill.. . and this budget also pays the landfill fee, as well. We charge, we've not seen any dramatic decline in... So the increase in cost, because the amount of refuse that is collected otherwise, and not going to the landfill.. .isn't offset by somewhat reduced costs at the landfill? We haven't seen that. That hasn't happened. Then the benefit is to the economy, to the ecological aspect. Yes. And not to the economy. There is no economic, there is no financial benefit. There is a benefit to the economy, because you have to remember the refuse collection is, first of all, a program of sanitation. That is we don't want that stuff left around your house any longer than a week, and secondly would be the issues of the environmental implications, that we want certain.. .that's why we have locations at our landfill for construction debris. Why under State law you can no longer, that's reflective in when we went to the.. .you'll notice the...I think I shared this with you, the big increase. That was the year we went to recycling programs and yard waste. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #6 Page 14 Elliott: No. Atkins: We charge a dollar a bag for yard waste bags. We've done that for over ten years because we calculate in a subsidy, because we like to keep it at that rate. Bailey: The way you said about recycling, just because we aren't seeing benefits now, we would see negative effects if we stopped recycling, it would increase our landfill. .. Elliott: That's what I was getting at! There are, in the long run... Atkins: Dh, absolutely! Elliott: .. .some financial benefits, in addition to the ecological benefits. Atkins: You're removing recyclable materials from ultimately finding their way into the landfill. Elliott: Yeah. Atkins: Now, we have to calculate, because that market is crazy. There are times that we will recycle materials and actually have to pay to have them put through a recycling process. Elliott: But I think it is helpful to know that in addition to aiding the ecology, that we are experiencing at least some financial rewards also. Atkins: Remember, we provide a lot of services out of refuse collection, and then also Parks, for example, the ice storm. We suspended the rules and we allowed people to bring it to the landfill. We picked it up without it being bundled. Those things cost money, because it takes longer to do that. Bailey: But, let's be really clear, this increase in cost is not a reflection of those things costing money. Vanderhoef: And I'd like to point out, with purchase of another one of the single- operator trucks, when we purchased that new truck, we increased our capacity for picking up refuse, without adding to our staff numbers, and we've created a safety for our workers in that they don't have to physically lift and toss all of the refuse into the trucks anymore, and that is always a concern, and these people worked very, very hard and it's hard on their bodies to do that every single day. So, I'm pleased that we're moving forward with our single-occupancy trucks to pick up our refuse and protect our workers. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #6 Correia: Atkins: Bailey: Correia: Wilburn: Page 15 Well, and I'm just going to add to that, talking about the amount that we're recycling residentially, urn, flat-lining or staying, I mean, we've had a lot more multi-family condo development and we don't recycle, have a City program to recycle at multi-family and I think as we start to talk about increasing opportunities for recycling outside of what we're currently offering... Well, mobile home parks, for example. We don't do anything in mobile home parks and it'd be nice to be able...a very dense living and creating probably as much as any single-family home, and we have not been able to service them. Those are the kinds of things we can do yet, but I think the last number I saw... we're estimating Iowa City residents about 35% fully participate in recycling. We think that ought to be closer to 50. Especially when kids are growing up in households that recycle, and you know, people who move here are used to recycling. It's been around long enough, and perhaps part of it is provision of service, recycling services, by the City. And I know that there's an interest, especially at the high school level. I attended the Chamber Youth Leadership program, one of their events, and the high schools are interested in more recycling at schools, and I think that'd be a partnership there, between the City and the schools, to get the recycling out once they have it collected. So... Roll call. Item carries 6-0. (Champion absent.) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #7 Page 16 ITEM 7 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PAYMENT OF $300.00 CIVIL PENALTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHT TO HEARING FROM GASBY'S. Karr: You have a revised... Wilburn: Okay. Karr: They have signed the waiver and paid the fee, so we just have a resolution to accept that. Wilburn: Okay. Resolution to accept payment, I'm sorry, of $300 civil penalty and waiver of right to hearing from Gasby's. O'Donnell: So moved. Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell. Vanderhoef: Second. Wilburn: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Roll call. Item carries 6-0. (Champion absent.) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #8 ITEM 8 Karr: Wilburn: Karr: Wilburn: Karr: Wilburn: Finlayson: Wilburn: Finlayson: Wilburn: Elliott: Finlayson: Elliott: Finlayson: Elliott: Page 17 ASSESSING A $300.00 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST THE CONVENIENCE STORE, PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE SECTION 453A.22(2) (205) a) CONDUCT HEARING Item 8 is the same; there is no change. Item 8 is the same as the agenda. Oh, okay. There is no change. Okay. Item 8, so there will be a public hearing? Thank you. There will be...it will be a hearing. A Conduct Hearing, yeah. Item 8 is assessing a $300 civil penalty against the Convenience Store, pursuant to Iowa Code, Section 453A.22(2) (205). This is a hearing, an opportunity for, urn, not an opportunity for the public, but the person who the penalty is being assessed against, to state their case. (pounds gavel) Hearing's open. Scott Finlayson, Johnson County Assistant Attorney. Welcome. On January 22nd, 2007, Matthew Zbiegin, who is an employee of the Convenience Store, violated Iowa Code Section 453A.2 by selling tobacco to a minor. Because this is the first such offense, for one of the Convenience Store's employees, we recommend the Council assess a Civil Penalty in the amount of $300.00, pursuant to Iowa Code Section 453.22. Are there any questions I can answer? Questions by Council? Does the fine go against the individual selling, or against the business? There's two separate legal proceedings - one for the individual, one for the business. So, it'd be for the business, the fine would go to the business. That's what we're addressing at this point? Right. Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #8 Page 18 Wilburn: Thank you. Is anyone here from the business to address the Council? Okay. (pounds gavel) Hearing is closed. b) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Wilburn: Moved by Vanderhoef. Correia: Second. Wilburn: Seconded by Correia. Discussion? Roll call. Item carries 6-0. (Champion absent.) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #9 Page 19 ITEM 9 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, ENTITLED "PUBLIC WORKS," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "CITY UTILITIES," ARTICLE A, ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS," BY AMENDING SECTION 5 TO ALLOW FOR DEPOSITS TO BE BILLED INSTEAD OF PAID IN ADVANCE WITH PROPER PAYMENT HISTORY. (PASS AND ADOPT) Bailey: Move adoption. Vanderhoef: Second. Wilburn: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Bailey: I think this makes things more customer-friendly, so it's a good move. Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries 6-0. (Champion absent.) Anyone need a break, or just keep moving forward? Vanderhoef: Let's just go. Wilburn: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #10 Page 20 ITEM 10 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR THE DUBUQUE STREET & CHURCH STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT STP-U- 3715(632)-70-52. Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Wilburn: Moved by Vanderhoef. O'Donnell: Second. Wilburn: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion, and just so there's clarity on this, this resolution is for authorization of funding, using STP funds. Is that correct, Steve? Atkins: Yes. Wilburn: Urn, so that's what this, that's what's in front of us tonight. Kinsey Fields: Is there any opportunity for discussion on this? Wilburn: Yes. You need to state your name for the public and you'll have to limit your comments to five minutes or less. Kinsey Fields: Sure. My name's Joni Kinsey Fields and I live at 325 Brown Street, and I'm going to paste my name in here. Wilburn: Okay. Kinsey Fields: Urn, the neighbors in the region ofthe district you're talking about, the Northside Neighborhood, only heard about this action this afternoon and there are lots and lots of people who would really like to have a say in this issue. Urn, I don't understand quite why not a public discussion issue already, and not publicly noted, you know, posted, but there's a lot of people who've been emailing all day, and who would like to be here but they already had prior commitments, who are really nervous and troubled and concerned by this proposal to change a major intersection in our neighborhood, and potentially really alter the character of a fundamental street in our neighborhood. My basic, I have lots of things to say about why this shouldn't be done, but for the moment I'd like to suggest that this be deferred and put on some sort of public docket, that we... Wilburn: Just so that you're aware, this...tonight is the funding agreement. This project has been in our capital improvement, isn't that correct - our capital This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20,2007. #10 Page 21 improvements budget and was part of the overall budget, City budget and Capital Improvement Budget, that we, the Council, spent time in January and February, discussing. I'm not saying you didn't hear about it, I'm just saying that it has been out there. It has been discussed. It was televised, the work sessions, about the Capital Improvement projects, just so that you have that piece of information. Kinsey Fields: Was it specifically detailed with widening of streets and creating turn lanes and all of those things? I see nods, I see shaking of heads. Bailey: I think the confusion has been... Wilburn: I don't know ifit's been final design...was that part of the budget discussion, or. . . but the concept of what's going on was part of that discussion. (several talking) (female) . . . three lanes on Church. Wilburn: Okay. Well, again, so not...the concept of improving the intersection and widening, I don't want to take away from your time. I was just giving out that information that this project, at least, has been out there. So if you, if there's other comments that you wish to make about it, you've got a couple minutes to do that. Kinsey Fields: Well, basically, I'd love to see a deferral so that we could have more public input on this issue, because there's an awful lot of people who have something to say about this, and I'd be happy to explain some of mine, but I think that would be best, you know, left to a larger discussion about neighborhood values and the public school down the street and the amount of traffic that's on that street already and the zoning that was, that took place about ten years ago that redistricted the whole neighborhood, to a neighborhood conservation zone, and it seems to me that this flies straight in the face of all of that, that was done in very good faith on the part of both neighbors and the Council, with virtually no opposition back then, and this is just a complete contradiction to that. So, if I could ask you to defer it, I'd.. .that's my plea for this evening. Vanderhoef: I...I'mjust curious, where did you get that there's three lanes on Church Street, other than a right-hand turn lane? Kinsey Fields: Well, I actually didn't say that just now. Bailey: I did. And I... that was the picture... Vanderhoef: Well, not all the way down, just... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #10 Page 22 Bailey: Well, no, but 200 feet.. . Vanderhoef: 200 feet... that's, urn, the engineering piece to make it possible for turning traffic of the buses, to make that radius without having to have this gridlock that happens at that corner, when people get too close to the corner and you can't back up and... Kinsey Fields: Well, I appreciate it. I go through that intersection several times, pretty much every day, and I've lived there for 15 years and I go through there at different times of day, and I'm there at 5:00 at so-called rush hour. It lasts about 15 minutes, and there's maybe five or six cars backed up. Nobody's delayed terribly long, and my point simply is, one, more people need to be involved with this design decision, and the people that are directly affected, that live there and so forth, there's a long history of preserving this neighborhood, that a lot of people have been involved with and this is really going to change the nature ofthis area, and urn, in a very, very bad way, and urn, I just think that this is something you can't rubber-stamp. You just can't. There's too many people, too many things affected, both the historic nature of the area. It's a conservation district, in terms of its zoning, its part of the oldest part ofIowa City. There's a school. There have been so many changes that have taken place in the last 15 years since that initial zoning took place, urn, with new families moving in with children. It's just taken a turn around into a really lively family neighborhood, and that is going to change utterly if you just zoom tons of traffic down that street. There's a better way to do it. There's gotta be a better way to do it. Wilburn: Wright: Okay, thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to say something before the Council has its deliberation? Good evening, I'm Michael Wright. I'm the Chair ofthe Northside Neighborhood Association. Urn, the Northside Association does have some serious concerns about this project. Urn, adding turn lanes, Church and on Dubuque, would serve the Dubuque Street side to be funneling traffic down Church. Church is not an arterial street. It's starting to be treated like an arterial street. It was actually meant to be just kind of a neighborhood collector. The volume of traffic on Church is already quite heavy. It's also very fast. The speeding concerns on Church Street are not new. This is only going to make it worse. Church is a residential street. There is also a school on Church. Urn, and these are considerations that I don't think this project has really looked at, particularly well. This is basically a continuing a trend to turn Church into (TAPE ENDS) .. . area. I agree that is not a (can't hear) intersection. Our traffic problems on the north side are pretty minimal. You might see five or six cars stacked up at the bad time of the day. This is a project I think should be shelved, or given, certainly at least, given a much wider discussion than it has. I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #10 Wilburn: Brandt: Wilburn: Bailey: Page 23 know it has been, I understand it has been out there. It has not been discussed at the neighborhood level to any degree at all, and I would ask the Council to please shelve the project, put it on hold, but not to make any action on this issue right now. Um, ultimately a project like this can have a destabilizing effect in a neighborhood. The Northside Association has been working very hard to try and stabilize our neighborhood over the past few years. We've made a lot of progress. Something like this that brings a lot of extra traffic and a lot of extra noise, volume, dirty, dust and dirt into the neighborhood, can really start to turn that around. So, we'd like to ask that the Council put this one off. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else from the public care to address this item? Paula Brandt, 824 N. Gilbert, and I would just simply like to echo that, because I think that the neighborhood does need an opportunity to hear from the City why they think this is good for us, why it's good for our neighborhood. We understand why it's good for people who want to drive through our neighborhood, but why is this proposal good for us? How can it benefit us? And ifit doesn't benefit the people who live there, why are we talking about it? Thank you for your comments. Would anyone else from the public care to address the Council on this item? Okay, Council discussion, and I will reiterate that this has been part ofthe Capital Improvement Plan for the Council. You're aware of that. Urn, what we have in front of us tonight is a finance arrangement, and if you...if a majority of Council just plain doesn't support the project, I would suggest just not authorize accepting the money to do the project, rather than some type of deferral and, I mean, we've heard tonight, some of us heard during the Capital Improvement Budget discussion. I can think of two, three, four other years where the Council budget discussions, where the item has been discussed, urn, so again, if you are just against the project and some of you had the opportunity and did say so during our budget discussions, I would say just vote it down rather than...if you have the majority of Council to do so. But.. . however, urn, we have received correspondence and conversation in the past from the public, so I guess I would just put that out there for. . . When we discussed it with the CIP, there were some concerns about it from a couple of us, and I absolutely am surprised that it remained on the CIP. Last night was the first time that we saw a super-sizing of this intersection. I was absolutely willing to go ahead with this project to include the turn radius for the buses, absolutely, because the University was interested in doing that and I saw that it could be beneficial, and I was even willing to consider and to discuss a turning lane, from Dubuque Street to Church Street. Last night we saw additional turn lanes on Church This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #10 Correia: Page 24 Street, 200 feet to the east and 200 feet to the west. That seems, that seems ridiculous, given the volume, and it was indicated last night by traffic planners that we don't yet have the volume - we're anticipating the volume in the next 30 years. What 1'd like to see with this item is 1'd like to, I would like to defer it and I would like to direct our traffic planners to discuss this project with the neighborhood, at a neighborhood association meeting, and to discuss that super-sizing ofthe Church Street, because I think that the neighborhood could agree that the turn radiuses ofthe buses, that needs to be addressed. I think that we could all agree and I think that could be addressed without dramatically effecting the neighborhood. I live on Church Street, you know. You all know that, and I knew that I was moving onto a busy street, and I don't have any problem with people driving through our neighborhood. It's their privilege to drive through our neighborhood. It's a beautiful neighborhood, but the way we should be encouraging people. . . we heard last night that our policies are turning a collector street into an arterial. Our policies should guide people to our arterials and maintain safety and ease ofthe, of that intersection, to the degree it's necessary to use our streets the way that they were intended to use, and to respect a neighborhood that is, as Joni said, coming back amazingly. Everybody in our neighborhood is, you know, there are more children in our neighborhood. Everybody's having babies, but there are lots more children in the neighborhood. The enrollment at the school is up. Church Street has a school at that Dodge Street and Church corner, and I think that we should sit down and view this planning with the neighborhood. You're right, it has been discussed, but nobody has seen the design or heard discussion about potentially widening Church Street, and I think that's the reason it needs deferred and we need to have a public discussion about that. Yeah, I was surprised when we saw the level of design and how much you are increasing all the way around four corners, and I drove through that corridor today, along Dubuque Street and it feels like it changes...! mean, that corner is going to be so much bigger than the other intersection corners, Jefferson and Market. It just doesn't seem like it makes sense, even just visually going down the street, and it... the conversation that we had last night around looking at where there might be at times congestion on, at the four corners, it's really, at the one - going south, at specific times of day, and I think that there are concerns all across the town, around wanting to slow people down, um, they're going too fast. One way to slow people down is having an appropriately sized, urn, intersection for the neighborhood. I mean, I think, urn, certainly the turn radiuses on the buses is inconvenient. I mean, I've never.. .I'm sure there have been accidents and you just deal with it when you're there. They wait, people go around, um, I don't see that, um, I mean, I would be willing to just shelve it. I mean, I think that we can...ifwe did as we did at Jefferson, um, make the left-hand lane the turn lane and have people go through on This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #10 Page 25 the right and if they want to turn, use that, they turn, and if they don't they go around on the right hand lane and try and I know we talked about . arrows. Arrows won't work because there isn't the same amount of traffic all the way around, like there is at Kirkwood and Gilbert, so... Bailey: And without the same amount of traffic all the way around, that's why I was surprised to hear turn lanes on Church. It didn't seem to be warranted. Vanderhoef: We have an engineer, one of our engineers in the group. Would you come up? I've got a... Elliott: Before you get there, I'm glad to hear you people talking about this, because obviously you've changed your mind on the Gilbert Street- Highway 6 intersection, which would have a significantly greater impact there than this has in this neighborhood. Wilburn: Hold on a second (several talking at once). Hold on a second, please. Urn, that's another discussion, and not germane to... Elliott: No, it is germane. Correia: I would like to address that, because I thought about that, Bob. What I thought about with that was at the 6-Gilbert, you have... there's two things that I saw as being unique, different between these two intersections. One is there's a lot of traffic on all four comers at all different times of the day. Elliott: One's commercial, one's residential. Correia: And there...and you're expecting a lot of growth, urn, south of Gilbert. I don't know what the plat is for Sand Hill Estates - how many homes; having.. . Wilburn: I'm going to ask.. . excuse me, Amy. I'll let you continue, but I need to clarify with our City Attorney. This is about a agreement between Iowa City and DOT about Dubuque and Church Streets. I would ask for an opinion about whether discussions tonight about 6th and Gilbert, because there're parties that are interested in that who are not here... Correia: I'm only...I'm only... Wilburn: Can I get the opinion first? I will allow you to continue if this is germane, but in my opinion it is not germane. If I'm wrong.. .if I'm incorrect, then you can continue. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20,2007. #10 Page 26 Dilkes: I think if a Council Member is making some connection to, between the Gilbert Street-Highway 6 project and the, and this project, and it's, it doesn't violate the Open Meetings Act to discuss it. Wilburn: Okay, and I.. .you can continue, but I'm, if somebody's watching this, we're going to hear from some folks... Dilkes: My opinion is a legal one. Wilburn: Yeah, I understand. I was talking about a political. Go ahead, Amy. Correia: And what... part of our conversation was with staff last night was we're not seeing new, I mean, we're not expecting new population in this area that we're talking about. We have the same amount of housing units. We've not expecting big developments. There's not additional traffic expected coming down Church, or going the other direction, like east- west. It's more south, it's folks coming in, and so trying to move people in easier, I feel that's appropriate, but super-sizing the intersection just doesn't seem, even esthetically, the right thing to do coming in to the city at that intersection. O'Donnell: I'd like to know why are we going 200 feet down Church? Knoche: The 200 foot down Church was just to allow for the storage lanes and to taper those back into the existing cross-section. Bailey: Storage for what? Knoche: The storage for left turners. Ifwe put a left turn lane in on Church, then that would be the reason for the widening of it. Bailey: But this is the first we've talked about a left turn lane on Church was last night. Knoche: And as we've been scooping it out, that was one of the things that came up as an option. Now, it's not a necessity at this point to have the left turn lanes on Church Street, and we can definitely take those out. I just want to also point out that we haven't had our meetings with the neighborhood yet with this project just because we are in the preliminary stages of it yet. So we will be going out and having neighborhood meetings with those, on the corridor, and those within the neighborhood, that want to be at a meeting of the neighborhood. Bailey: But I think what the neighbors are hearing is you have a design in mind that, even with neighborhood meetings, might not be effected. The design might not be effected. I mean, as I said before, and I did think about the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #10 Page 27 Gilbert-6, and the distinction that I'm making is, I am willing to improve traffic flow through this intersection with the turn radius, and I was even willing to talk about this left turn lane onto Church Street. I was very respectful ofthat concern. My concerns escalated dramatically last night when I saw the potential design, with an indicator that traffic numbers didn't warrant this increase, at this time, that we were planning 30 years out, with no. . . Knoche: What...r... what Dave did point out last night at the meeting was that the entering traffic on Church Street for the eastbound movement warranted a left turn lane on that leg of the intersection. That is what he pointed out yesterday, urn, and he said...1 00 vehicles a day is what that, is what that threshold is. Bailey: 100 vehicles a day? Knoche: I'm sorry...1 00 vehicles per hour, sorry. Bailey: That seemed.. ..(several talking at once). Vanderhoef: Okay, may I finally get my questions in to Ron, because I asked him to come up some time ago, and the geometry of that intersection, to make the bus turns, as we showed in the pictures last night, how they overlap into the oncoming traffic when they are turning eastbound from southbound Dubuque Street. How far back would we have to taper the street to get the width so that bus can make that turn without going into the oncoming traffic lane? (several talking at once) I'm talking about right hand turn... Knoche: The right hand turn from southbound Dubuque, onto Church Street. Bailey: I just want to be really clear what side we're talking about. Vanderhoef: Turning east. Bailey: The west side of the intersection. Vanderhoef: The north side of the intersection. Knoche: The northeast, or northwest corner of the intersection. Vanderhoef: Yes. And so, how far back, probably not the 200 feet, but it is going to be probably 100 feet? Knoche: I would guess it, at the maximum, probably would be 100 feet, because what we're doing is actually widening the radius so that the bus can make the movement and not cross the center line. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #10 Page 28 Vanderhoef: Right, and not cross center line. So it's, even without a turn lane, we're going to be cutting back there at least 100 feet, if not 200. Knoche: And that would just be on that north curb line of Church Street. Vanderhoef: Uh-huh. Knoche: On that west leg. Vanderhoef: And likewise on the west leg of Church Street, the same thing happens when those buses are trying to turn south towards Mayflower, or north towards Mayflower, excuse me. Well, they come around on Clinton in front of the President's home, and then they turn north (several talking). Knoche: Yeah, the radius problem isn't that movement. It's the movement from southbound to westbound. Vanderhoef: Southbound? Knoche: Correct. V anderhoef: Yes, that's the one. O'Donnell: You know, I'm having trouble following your schematics here. I need directions. (laughter) We started out, my understanding...I think everybody agreed that this intersection is a problem, especially turning left on Church, which I think is east or whatever, east, um, I thought we could handle it with a turn arrow, but evidently we can't. Urn, I'm really, and I know that the plan isn't solid right now, but I'm really not in favor of going down Church Street the 200 feet, and I did support Highway 6 intersection. I'm not doing that too. But, this is, you know, it seems like we do an awful lot just to make it...for somebody to be able to turn left. I don't know, and this intersection is a problem, because people going south on Dubuque Street are now going up Brown Street, rather than trying to negotiate that comer, and I assume they come down Brown Street, rather than trying to get through that intersection, but uh, I don't know, maybe we do need a little more time on this. I'm not ready.. .I'm not ready to cancel it. Elliott: I'm interested in moving forward with the concept, but to me, the main need is to accommodate southbound traffic on Dubuque. Knoche: And I would agree with that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #10 Elliott: Knoche: Bailey: Knoche: Bailey: Knoche: Page 29 Because when you're westbound on Church, you're generally, if you're westbound on Church, you're probably going to turn right, or north, and so it's the, urn, westbound for the southbound traffic on Dubuque to turn right onto Church, to give them room - the buses room. And that's the issue. What happens is, if you have a left turner going to turn left on Church, and you have a bus in the right lane trying to make the right turn onto Church, and the bus can't turn, you're at gridlock, because the left (several talking at once) and I think that's the...the necessity of the project is the left turn lane on Dubuque Street, and the modification of the radius here. And that's what most of us, even though I wasn't crazy about this project, that's what most of us understood the project to be, and I was even willing to move forward with that. I think the neighbors could see, the neighborhood could see how that, that might be warranted, but last night's presentation, I think was very concerning, and I mean, just increasing all the, that entire intersection, does not seem warranted, and it just seems a little bit overreaching. I don't know what the words are. So, I mean, if we support this resolution tonight, how do we have some kind of guarantee or ideas that it goes back to the accommodation approach, rather than the super-sizing approach? We'll have public meetings with the neighborhoods, and the plans and specs come before you, before they go out for letting, I mean, that's the, I mean, that's where we'll be at. We can bring it back to you, you know, at another work session if that's what you prefer, but you know, we'll be meeting with the neighborhood within you know the next month or two months. And it might be nice to bring it back to a work session, or some kind of situation in which we can have questions and the neighbors can, some kind of dialog, so they can hear our understanding, our questions. I mean, I think that's the disconnect. We see things, we talk abut it in CIP, we have a concept of it. It seems generally okay. I have talked to some neighbors about this a couple years ago when it showed up. People felt generally okay with the description, you know, the left turn lane helping the buses out, but then you see more specifics and they don't have the benefit of seeing that at a work session. I knew it was on the agenda, but I thought we would see more of what we had been talking about, not something different, and so I think that's why they're concerned, is because when they say this is the first they've heard about it, this is the first they've heard of extra lanes, you know. Everybody kind of understood that the turn lanes might be down the road, so to speak. We can approve the funding for this and, well (several talking at once) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #10 Page 30 Elliott: We would request this come back as an action item, before it comes back, as an information item before it returns as an action item? (several talking at once) That's fine. Vanderhoef: After they've had a chance to talk with the neighbors and they are closer to what the plan is going to look like. Knoche: Just so I have some direction, my understanding then is that left turn lanes on Dubuque Street and the adjustment of the radius is what everybody understood as the project? (several talking at once) Okay. I understand. (several talking at once and laughter) Elliott: Yes, it's the southbound traffic on Dubuque Street that's being hampered. Wilburn: Eleanor, can you... Dilkes: The agreement that's before you tonight, the funding agreement, does not tie you into any particular design. Knoche: Correct. It is not any particular design. The design just has to meet the guidelines of the DOT. Dilkes: Okay, it certainly doesn't on the face of it, and that makes sense. In addition to the plans and specifications, I don't believe we've done the resolution authorizing property acquisition, so that has to come in front of you, as well. So we are. . . if the preliminary stages of tying ourselves to any particular design... Bailey: Right, and nothing in DOT specs, I don't understand them as well as you do, Dee, but nothing in DOT specs would suggest that the Dubuque Street alteration, that we would need or have to do Church Street, right? Knoche: That's correct. Wilburn: All I'm asking is to be clear, because some of the language about this project has been all over the place. If you still are just, if you want to see an improvement, that's good, but if you are against the improvement, or you're talking about shelving the plan, then say so because a lot of work goes into this, you know, I understand that there's always the opportunity to change your mind if in the end we end up with a design that you don't particularly agree with, there's always that, but just going into it, if you're open to an improvement on this intersection, if you believe it is warranted, then I would say vote against it, rather than, you know, I'm just putting that out there. Urn, there was talk about deferral. We've received information that we're not locked into a final drawing now. I'll entertain a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #10 Page 31 motion to defer, now if anyone wishes that. Otherwise, unless there's further discussion, I say we go ahead and... Elliott: I have a question. You feel comfortable at this point that there is room to talk, listen, learn, and perhaps change some of the things on, alter I would say, some of the things on Church that are causing some of the unhappiness? There's at least negotiation room on that. Knoche: We'll definitely meet with the neighborhood. Elliott: Good. Dilkes: The reason for the presentation last night was to let you all know what staff was considering. That's what...and so you all want to do something different, you can say so. Bailey: But I think that that's an important study point. I mean, many of us don't think about street improvements in our daily lives, so to think, 'Oh, that's out there, that could be out there, hm,' I need to rethink how I'm going to approach this project, and I think that was helpful, but it was also concerning because I never conceived that we would, would, as I'm calling it super-size the entire intersection, to solve the Dubuque Street problem. Correia: I mean, I do think...is there a sense that we want the least arnount of alteration to achieve some improvement to traffic flow, versus a total overhaul thinking... Bailey: ... traffic flow, I mean, with minimal intervention. Vanderhoef: And I will just ask you to remember what Jeff said to us last night in that this is a very expensive project that is built to last 30 years. When we lay in new concrete and do these kinds of designs, they are built not to be touched again for 30 years, because that concrete is good and the more we dig into it and try to change it over the years the street itself is degraded to the point that we lose potentially five to ten years off ofthe life of that concrete. Am I correct, Ron? Knoche: Correct. Vanderhoef: Okay. So, if that is the case, and our traffic planners are saying that we must look at a design, and they have used the traffic model, if they say that the design needs to be expanded somewhat, maybe not as much as what we saw last night, but it has to have some expansion there, or we have wasted a lot of citizens' money in building an inadequate, functioning corridor. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #10 Bailey: Correia: Bailey: Correia: Elliott: Correia: Elliott: Atkins: Elliott: Atkins: Page 32 ..quoting Mr. Davidson, he also said that our policies have turned a collector street into an arterial, and that is, has been some of my concerns, because if you look at the movement we're encouraging, not a horrible thing, but if you encourage more and more traffic to go to Church Street and then perhaps access Gilbert, where it still is one lane, rather than accessing. Gilbert down by Jefferson Street, where it turns into two lanes, that we're encouraging challenging traffic patterns where.. . and getting people off of our arterials. And I think... And I'm not saying they shouldn't use the streets, Bob. Well, and I.. . I just think the points been made. I'd like to move on. (several talking at once) I just wanted to make one other point that I was thinking about, something that Joni I think said, is we think about the policies that we have, the City has had about this neighborhood, creating a conservation district, and then a lot, you know, we make decisions around, you're making decisions around, you know, traffic planning and urn, intersections, related to growth in that area. I mean, we've had growth down across the road and, but as you come into this intersection, you're approaching a conservation area, where the, we wanted to maintain, this is a neighborhood. We want this...this is a neighborhood just coming in to Iowa City. You have a flavor then of historic Iowa City, urn, and so I do think we...thinking about if as we make policies to have Church be an arterial rather than a collector, instead of moving traffic towards collectors, then I mean that's a big policy shift and I mean I would hate to change that. This is an important neighborhood to Iowa City, in that, not just to the people that live in Iowa City, but I mean, you know, tourists to Iowa City, you know. Pointing out that all neighborhoods are important to all the people who live in them. I'd like to move on this item. Can I make the suggestion, I think you should defer this matter. Why? Huh, the project that you saw last night, if we were to take to the neighborhood, simply won't be acceptable. And you're going to hear that. And you're split amongst yourselves. I would just as soon, Ron, go back. Do a little redesign work. You obviously are interested in getting into the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #10 Page 33 details of the thing, and we'll bring that back to ya. Then send us to the neighborhoods with that work product, not with this work product. Knoche: That's good. Elliott: Move to defer then. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Second. Wilburn: Moved by Elliott, seconded by Bailey to defer. Atkins: May I ask Ron a couple questions? Wilburn: Sure. Atkins: You okay with what's happening? (laughter) Knoche: It's a lot more difficult to undo a funding agreement than it is to do one, so I'm comfortable with this. Atkins: Good. Thank you. Wilburn: Is there a date you're moving to defer to? Karr: How about indefinitely? It's just an indefinite? Atkins: No. I want it next meeting. Karr: April 3 rd? Atkins: I want to...yes. (laughter) I'm not saying...we may not get it done, but let's, the momentum has been created. Let's... if we have to defer it again, we'll bring it back to you on the....if we're going to call a neighborhood meeting, we need several weeks notice anyway. Wilburn: Which is April3rd, been moved and seconded to defer to April 3rd. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Carries 6-0. (Champion absent. ) Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Bailey: So moved. Vanderhoef: Second. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. _______~.__~_'"____.___,.__.__.__.____.____..__________~__.___.~__._.____._._,~.__ ..___ _~___...__~__.__. ,..__.__._...___ .,_'.___m___.....__. . ."___.__.__..~____..._._.._.,,_...__.__...____ #10 Page 34 Wilburn: Been moved by Bailey, seconded by Vanderhoef to accept correspondence. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Carries 6-0. (Champion absent.) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #11 ITEM 11 Bailey: Correia: Wilburn: Bailey: Atkins: Bailey: Wilburn: Page 35 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND NNW, INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE FIRST AVENUE/IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. Move the resolution. Second. Moved by Bailey, seconded by Correia. Discussion? I think it's important to move ahead on this design, and (unable to hear). Sorry! (laughter) No, let's move ahead on the design. We'll see! (laughter and several talking at once) Well, we've seen this project! (several talking at once) Further discussion? Roll call. Carries 6-0. (Champion absent.) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #13 Page 36 ITEM 13 COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS. Wilburn: Last night at our Council meeting, the Council formally agreed to appoint Elizabeth Koppes to the Plarming and Zoning Commission. Vanderhoef: I move approval. O'Donnell: Second. Wilburn: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Bailey: Thank you for her service, for her term, and thanks for reapplying. Wilburn: Thanks to all the applicants. We have plenty other openings. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Carries 6-0. (Champion absent.) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #15 Page 37 ITEM 15 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Wilburn: Amy? Mike? O'Donnell: Just one thing. Starting the other night, I had a bicycle, a black bicycle and somebody dressed in black without a light on the bicycle, and it was really difficult to see. Is there any requirement for lights on bicycles at night? (several talking at once) I really think we need to enforce that. The season's coming, the weather's improving, and I'd hate to see a bicyclist get hurt. That's all I have. Wilburn: My bike's green. It wasn't me. O'Donnell: I thought it was you, Ross. Wilburn: Dee? Vanderhoef: Nothing this evening, thank you. Wilburn: Regenia? Bailey: It wasn't me. My bike's still in the basement. Elliott: You just ride around the basement? (laughter) Nothing. Wilburn: For the Council's information, there is a request by an Erin Wright, couple weeks ago, to have a Council Member and/or staff member. I think the preference is to have a Council Member - participate in a United Nations' Association forum on global climate change. Urn, they're looking at Wednesday, April 18 or Thursday, April 19, at 7:00 P.M. on either of those evenings. I have meetings with several groups Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, urn, actually Saturday and Sunday I'm coaching softball all day long. So, I told them that I would let, Dale, that I would let her know tomorrow if a Council Member would be interested. We can pass the name on and they can contact you. I also drew out the names of two staff members that might be participants with the Council Member, and I also gave out a few of the member's names (unable to hear) interested in these issues that some might want to put on the panel. Is anyone available? Interested? Vanderhoef: I'm not available. Bailey: I'm available on the 19t\ but not the 18th. At 7:00? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007. #15 Page 38 Wilburn: At 7:00, is the time I have. Would you mind getting the email out to her? That Regenia would be available on Thursday the 19th? Thank you, and thank you, Regenia. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 20, 2007.