The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-04-26 Info Packet1 = 1 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 26, 2012 IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule MAY 1 WORK SESSION - 5:00 PM IP2 Work Session Agenda — MAY 1, 2012 IP3 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show IN Pending Work Session Topics MISCELLANEOUS IP5 Copy of Email from Council Member Throgmorton: MPO Long Range Transportation Plan Correspondence IP6 Copy of Email from Asst. to the City Manager Fruin: Public Meetings for Chicago to Omaha Passenger Rail System Planning Study IP7 Memo from Director of Public Works and Director of Planning & Community Development: Update: Flood Related Activities IP8 Email from Council Member Throgmorton: Jane Jacobs Walk IP9 Copy of Email from Economic Development Coordinator: An Article About Busy IP10 Copy of Email from Johnson County Executive Assistant: FYI Property Taxes IP11 Memo from First Asst. City Attorney: Proposed Acceptance of Outlot B, Mackinaw Village, Part 2 IP12 LEED Certificate to Fire Station No.2 IP13 Copy of letter from Historic Preservation Commission Chair to University of Iowa: 711 Melrose Avenue IP14 Article from The Gazette: Funding Creates Contrasts for Senior Centers in Cedar Rapids, Iowa City E -mail from City Manager to Legislators: Property Tax Iowa City [Distributed at 5/1 Council meeting] DRAFT MINUTES IP15 Planning & Zoning Commission: April 5 1 �'� CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 26, 2012 IP1 Council UT tive Meeting Schedule MAY 1 WORK SESSION - 5:00 PM IP2 Work Session Age da — MAY 1, 2012 IP3 Memo from City Clerk: IC Radio Show IN Pending Work Session opics MISCELLANEOUS IP5 Copy of Email from Council Mem r Throgmorton: MPO ong Range Transportation Plan Correspondence IP6 Copy of Email from Asst. to the City Ma ager Fruin: ublic Meetings for Chicago to Omaha Passenger Rail System Planning Stud IP7 Memo from Director of Public Works and 'r for of Planning & Community Development: Update: Flood Related Activities IP8 Email from Council Member Throgmorton: Jane Jacobs Walk IP9 Copy of Email from Economic Develop ent Coordin or: An Article About Busy IP10 Copy of Email from Johnson Count Executive Assistan • FY12 Property Taxes IP11 Memo from First Asst. City Attor ey: Proposed Acceptan of Outlot B, Mackinaw Village, Part 2 IP12 LEED Certificate to Fire S tion No.2 IP13 Copy of letter from H' toric Preservation Commission Chair t University of Iowa: 711 Melrose Avenue IP14 Article from The G ette: Funding Creates Contrasts for Senior Ce ers in Cedar Rapids, Iowa City DRAFT MINUTES IP15 Planning ,& Zoning Commission: April 5 r -gym pgt City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IN April 26, 2012 ' 04 ®r' 1 jaw CITY OF IOWA CITY Subject to change Date Time Meeting Location - F �� . "'''Ill }Iwo r G11i4� ohs ', .�� ,I hh Er III „A-7 „IN- Ri �ni �Y ii II!Y' ,�� II' tl'Y Ili ail ,I ,�� d �, i6 i�r;,II .�i�l b`a, ” ,. i� , C - 'aNI' Tuesday, May 01, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, May 01, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, May 15, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:OO13M Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Monday, May 28, 2012 Memorial Day City Offices Closed 11 it 9 III u I �m�� I� ! 7� N."; "�k 's�.r r�� ',n,.-a"w.I'._,�. '6hI , €fir. —a�� e� A,�. ,u' 4 ,._ 1`�i"h Tuesday, June 05, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, June 05, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:OO13M Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:30PM Joint Meeting Johnson County TBA �i�ii �ak", "41111,1" ai Yll. I' IIvu II III �it"iIG III Wednesday, July 04, 2012 Independence Day - City Offices Closed Tuesday, July 10, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, July 10, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, July 31, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J Harvat Hall F�p^'4� "'' Gu'8i19�'u Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall IP2 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (3 19) 356 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org City Council Work Session Agenda May 1, 2012 5:00 P. M. Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 410 E. Washington Street ■ Council Appointments [Agenda # 25] ■ Questions from Council re Planning & Zoning Items ■ Agenda Items ■ Non - Public Safety Radio System Selection ■ Legislative Issues Update ■ Information Packet Discussion [April 19 and 26] ■ Council Time ■ Pending Work Session Topics [IP # 4] ■ Meeting Schedule/ Upcoming Community Events /Council Invitations r -- �= p CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P3 MEMORANDUM Date: April 26, 2012 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: KXIC Radio Show At your April 17 work session meeting the Council Members agreed to the following schedule: May 2 - Throgmorton May 9 - Hayek May 16 - Dobyns May 23 - Dickens May 30 - Hayek Future commitments (reuise'd):': July 18 — Dobyns September 5 — Dobyns October 24 - Dobyns December 12 — Dobyns U: rad ioshowappts.doc IN 1 r I •,itan� �t CITY OF IOWA CITY PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS April 26, 2012 May 15, 2012 1. Follow -up presentation on the disposition or relocation of public housing units 2. Discuss potential revisions to the sidewalk snow clearing ordinance Pending Tonics to be Scheduled 1. Continuation of the discussion to consider consolidation or structural changes to city boards and commissions 2. Discussion of the Police Citizen Review Board's annual public forum to be held on May 9, 2012 3. Strategic plan status report (June 2012) 4. Discussion pertaining to noise concerns voiced by residents of Ecumenical Towers 5. Discuss potential procedures and/or policies related to requests for habitable private spaces constructed over public right -of -way IPS Marian Karr From: Tom Markus Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 10:45 AM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: MPO Long Range Transportation Plan Correspondence Place on info packet please. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jim Throgmorton Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 10:26 AM To: Tom Markus Subject: FW: MPO Long Range Transportation Plan Correspondence Hi Tom. FYI (see below). Jim From: Janet Dvorsky Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 9:35 AM To: 'Dave Ricketts';'Janelle Rettig'; John Yapp;'Louise From'; 'Terrence Neuzil'; Susan Mims; 'Tom Gill'; 'Gerry Kuhl'; 'Terry Donahue'; 'cball@southslope.net'; 'John Lundell'; Michelle Payne; Rick Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton Cc: Kent Ralston Subject: FW: MPO Long Range Transportation Plan Correspondence Board Members - Please see the correspondence below from Jim Throgmorton regarding the draft MPO Long Range Transportation Plan. Best, Kent Ralston, AICP Assistant Transportation Planner Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 319.356.5253 www.mpoic.org - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jim Throgmorton Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 9:33 AM To: John Yapp; Kent Ralston Cc: jthrogmo @yahoo.com Subject: FW: MPOJC Community Climate Action Taskforce Contact Information John and Kent, I have read the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) carefully. As I told Kent last night, I think it is fine so far as it goes. (There are several typos and bits of missing information, but I'm sure you will clean that up.) But as I also told Kent last night, I see two glaring omissions that deserve attention. First, the plan is silent about the threat posed by global climate change. Consequently it is also silent about what we in Johnson County can do to mitigate further climate change and adapt to the changes that, according to climate scientists, now appear inevitable. The most severe of those changes will) later in this century, but nontrivial effects seem very likely to kick in prior to 2040 (the end date for our LRTP. I recognize that not everyone agrees that climate change is caused by humans, and I further recognize that there is considerable uncertainty associated with projecting conditions two or more decades into the future. But, as a policy matter, it would be foolhardy not to consider the best projections currently available and ask ourselves: WHAT IF, those projections turn out to be accurate? If we wanted to mitigate those effects, what would we need to change in our LRTP? If we assume that those projections will turn out to be accurate, how will the new conditions affect the viability of the transportation system we will have created? A directly related question is, WHAT IF the price of gasoline rises to $8 or more per gallon by 2020 or 2025? Second, the plan is silent about the local effects of potential reductions in federal and state funding. If I read the plan correctly, it presumes that federal and state funding for transportation projects will increase at the rate of inflation (assumed to by 4% per year) throughout the planning period. Given the past year's debates in Washington DC about the need to cut spending, this projected increase in funding seems wildly optimistic. Regardless of what one's political position is on the merits of the cuts being advocated, would it not be wise of us to be asking: WHAT IF our federal funding is cut by 25% (or even 50 %) by the year 2017 (or some other reasonable year)? How would such a cut affect our current LRTP? What would we need to delete? If such cuts are sustained over the remainder of our planning period, what changes would we want to make in our Plan? I believe our MPO Board needs to authorize you and the rest of our staff to do some contingency planning that falls outside the federally mandated LRTP requirements. We need to instruct you to help us answer the WHAT IF? questions. Please share this email with other members of the Urbanized Area Policy Board. Jim Throgmorton District C, Iowa City Council IP6 Marian Karr From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 4:35 PM To: Marian Karr Cc: Tom Markus Subject: FW: Public Meetings for Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Marian, Please include this in the next information packet to Council. Thank you, Geoff From: email @chicagotoomaha.com [mailto :email @chicagotoomaha.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 4:28 PM To: amanda.martin @dot.iowa.gov; janet.vine @dot.iowa.gov Subject: Public Meetings for Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study The Iowa Department of Transportation in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration and Illinois Department of Transportation want to remind you about the upcoming Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study's in- person and online, self- directed open house meetings beginning May 1, 2012. The open house is intended to illustrate various route alternatives, explain the process used to evaluate the route alternatives, discuss the findings of the alternatives analysis, and gain public input on the proposed route alternatives. Potential improvements to the passenger rail system from Chicago, III., through Iowa, to Omaha Neb., will help complete the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative's vision for developing an improved and expanded passenger rail system in the Midwest. This Study will be a major step in assessing the viability of a high- speed, regional passenger rail system for Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska and the Midwest. Online meeting The online meeting and route alternatives analysis report will be available by visiting http:// www.iowadot.gov /chicagotoomaha/ beginning May 1through May 12, 2012. In- person meetings The in- person open house meetings are scheduled as follows. Chicago, Illinois Date: Tuesday, May 1 Time: 4 -7 p.m. Location: Union Station, 500 W. Jackson St. Des Moines, Iowa • Date: Wednesday, May 2 • Time: 4 -7 p.m. • Location: State Historical Society of Iowa Building, 600 E. Locust St. Council Bluffs, Iowa • Date: Thursday, May 3 • Time: 4 -7 p.m. • Location: Mid - America Center, 1 Arena Way Comments All comments on route alternatives and the alternatives analysis report, submitted online, by mail, phone message, or in person will be accepted until May 21, 2012. For more information, please visit the study's website at http:// www .iowadot.gov /chicagotoomaha /. Federal and state laws prohibit employment and /or public accommodation discrimination on the basis of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran's status. If you believe you have been discriminated against, please contact the Iowa Civil Rights Commission at 800 - 457 -4416 or Iowa Department of Transportation's affirmative action officer. If you need accommodations because of a disability to access the Iowa Department of Transportation's services, contact the agency's affirmative action officer at 800 - 262 -0003. IP7 CITY OF IOWA CITY M E M R A N U Date: April 23, 2011 To: Thomas M. Markus, City Manager From: Rick Fosse, Director of Public Works Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development Re: Update: Flood Related Activities Public Works Department (Rick Fosse. 356 -5141) Flood Hazard Buyout Program • Demolition has been completed on all properties acquired to date. Final site restoration is currently occurring. Gateway Project: Dubuque Street Elevation and Park Road Bridge Reconstruction • Coordination of impacts to Section 4(f) resources with Iowa DOT. • HNTB to conduct noise impact analysis. Ambient noise readings were collected Tuesday, April 10. Noise modeling was completed and report preparation is underway. • HNTB continues writing and refining the Environmental Assessment document. It is anticipated to be sent to Iowa DOT for review by the end of May. • A conceptual design of the preferred alternative was revised based on City Staff comments. HNTI3 is moving forward with impact analysis of this alternative. • The next TAC meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 9th. • A public hearing will be held mid - summer with final design beginning by Labor Day of this year. Wastewater Treatment Plant Consolidation • A construction contract was awarded by Council to Joseph J. Henderson & Son. Construction will begin in late spring. Rocky Shore Drive Pump Station and Floodgates • A revised pump station layout is being designed. • Work is continuing on negotiating an agreement with CRANDIC railroad. West Side Levee • IEDA has reviewed the Request for Release of Funds and Corresponding Environmental Certification for the West Side Levee Project. The request and certification were found adequate and funds were released as of April 07, 2012. • Property acquisition and tenant relocation will begin now that funds have been released. 2 Taft Speedway Levee • The consultant hopes to have the soils analysis and hydraulic modeling completed by May. • The screened alternatives are currently being refined and evaluated by the Consultant. The results of the screened alternative analysis and cost estimates will be presented at the next public meeting. • The next public meeting is currently scheduled for late May at the Parkview Church in Iowa City. Updates will be posted to the project website when they become available. East Side Levee • MMS Consultants, Inc. has completed survey work and is currently working on the preliminary levee alignment and storm water drainage analysis. • The archaeological survey and wetland delineation have been completed and are currently being reviewed by the proper agencies. Animal Shelter City Council approved a resolution on the April 3, 2012 authorizing basic design concept, tentative agreements with neighboring jurisdictions, and providing interim service to neighboring jurisdictions The updated proposed project schedule is as follows: • Extension request submitted: April 2012 • FAFC Fundraising study: April 2012 • Improved project request: August 2012 • Estimated completion in late 2014 Water Main River Crossings • The project has been awarded to Vieth Construction Corporation. Construction is anticipated to begin in late April and be completed by mid - September 2012. Water Works Prairie Park Water Source Protection • A contract has been awarded for this work and the contractor has begun work on the project. Work is to be completed by the end of September 2012 Planning and Community Development (Jeff Davidson, 356 -5232) o One more property (516 Normandy) was acquired with CDBG funds. To date, a total of 87 residential properties have been acquired with disaster recovery buyout grants. Of the 87 properties, 46 properties have been acquired using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, 35 properties with Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds and six properties with Community Disaster Grant (CDG) funds. A total of 82 structures have been demolished in the Parkview Terrace and Taft Speedway neighborhoods. o A budget amendment for approximately $1.8 million in CDBG buyout funds was accepted by the Iowa Economic Development Authority. The additional funds will be used to add the following four properties to the CDBG Buyout Program: 604 Eastmoor Drive, 809 Eastmoor Drive, 608 Granada Court and 822 Park Road. o The final property acquired with HMGP funds was demolished and the grant is in the process of being closed out. The HMGP Acquisition Program application was submitted in January 2009 and to date has spent almost $8 million. The CDBG acquisition program application was submitted in August 2009. To date, the CDBG acquisition program has spent approximately $11 million in acquisition and demolition costs. 3 • Thomas McInerney, a local architect, is continuing work on the Ned Ashton House Adaptive Reuse Study and plans on completing it by the end of June 2012. The property was acquired with CDBG buyout funds, but the structure will not be demolished because it is on the National Register of Historic Places. It will become a special events facility that will be managed and maintained by the Parks & Recreation Department. • Multi - Family New Construction The Iowa Department of Economic Development recently announced a Multi- Family Rental Unit New Construction Program for disaster - impacted areas. Iowa City received three proposals from local developers, and under program guidelines the City can only fund one project, so a committee has been formed to select what project will receive funding. • Single Family New Construction Sixteen homes in Round 3 of the Single Family New Construction Program have been built and sold. The remaining 15 units in Round 3 are expected to be completed by late summer. To date, 93 owner - occupied affordable housing units have been constructed and sold from all three rounds. • Iowa City has submitted a plan to the Iowa Economic Development Authority for Round 4 of the Single Family New Construction Program. There will be 33 homes constructed in Round 4. All homes in this round must be built for no more than $150,000 and must be targeted for homeowners with incomes at or below 80% of area median income. There will be a total of 141 homes built in all four rounds of the program. o Infrastructure An environmental release has been granted by the State for the West Side Levee. Iowa City can start the process of developing construction bid documents. o The next public meeting for the Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study will be held in early June. A public open house will be held the last week of May to present the final results to the public prior to the meeting. HDR is the firm conducting the study and will lead the meeting. o Site surveying and base mapping continue for the East Side Levee. Work is beginning on the environmental assessment needed for the project. Marian Karr From: Jim Throgmorton Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 8:23 AM To: Council Cc: Tom Markus; Marian Karr Subject: RE: Jane Jacobs Walk w /corrrection Greetings, I want to invite you to join us on the "Jane Jacobs Walk, which will take place from 3 to 5 pm on Saturday, May 5. We'll begin at the Washington and Dubuque St part of the Pedestrian Mall, and then head south. Details, including a map of the walk and info about Jane Jacobs, can be found at: http://www.facebook.com/JanesWalklowaCi ty Hope you can join in the fun. Jim Marian Karr MI From: Tom Markus Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:21 AM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: An article about Busy Please add article to info packet From: Wendy Ford Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:06 AM To: Jeff Davidson; Tom Markus Subject: FW: An article about Busy Nice article about Busy Coworking in the Silicon Prairie News a -zine. See link below. �t1en�� From: brig htgreenstrategy @gmail.com [ mailto : brig htgreenstrategy @gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sheila Samuelson Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 2:35 PM To: Wendy Ford Cc: Jordan Running Subject: An article about Busy Hi Wendy, Just thought you might like to see /share this article in the Silicon Prairie News out of Omaha, which features Busy's opening: http• / /www siliconprairienews com /2012 /04/busy- coworking- carves- out - shared - workspace -in- downtown -iowa -city We had 2 new members join last week, and might get a couple more this week! Sheila Sheila Samuelson Sustainable Business Consultant Bright Green Strategy MBA in Sustainable Management, 2008 sheilakbrightgreenstrategy.com 1 319.400.8285 http : / /www.BrightGreenStrategy.com Follow on Twitter (0),thebright rg een), Facebook, LinkedIn Marian Karr From: Tom Markus Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:05 AM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: Property Tax Considerations Attachments: Copy of Telephone Companies FY12 Property Taxes.xlsx Please incorporate this in the info packet From: Andy Johnson [mailto:ajohnson @co.johnson.ia.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:13 PM To: Tom Markus; murley.stephen @iccsd.kl2.ia.us Subject: FW: Property Tax Considerations Tom and Steve, You have probably heard that there is word that the legislature is reaching a deal on property tax that involves a compromise on credits and roll backs. We have been told that they plan to backfill those portions so local governments are not hurt. However, the compromise apparently also involves changing all apartments to residential classification and ending the tax on phone lines. These portions will not be backfilled. Below is an email that Janelle has sent with information that the Board will be discussing tomorrow. We wanted legislators to see the potential impact of these changes. We have shared the apartment data in the past but the Auditor's Office just collected the phone information today and I thought you would want to have it. Andy Johnson Executive Assistant 319 - 356 -6000, Extention 8009 From: Andy Johnson Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:03 PM To: 'Bolkcom, Joe [LEGIS'; ' Mary.Mascher @legis.state.ia.us'; 'Vicki. Lensing@legis.state. ia. us'; 'david.jacoby @legis.state.ia.us'; 'nate.willems @legis.state.ia.us'; 'Robert. Dvorsky@legis.state. ia. us' Cc: Rod Sullivan; Andy Johnson; 'gary@grantconsultingllc.com'; larry@llmurphy.com Subject: Property Tax Considerations Johnson County Legislators, Below is an email written by Janelle. However, she needed to leave the office before we had all of the data that is included so she asked me to send it out when it was complete. The full Board will be discussing pending legislation during a work session first thing tomorrow morning. If you need additional information, please let me know. We appreciate any updates you are able to provide as the session winds to a close. Andy Johnson Executive Assistant 319 - 356 -6000, Extention 8009 From: Janelle Rettig Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:00 PM To: Andy Johnson Cc: Rod Sullivan Subject: Property tax considerations Dear Legislators: We spoke with several of you over the past few days about concerns about commercial property tax reform and the impact on local government. Setting aside commercial property tax for the moment as it still appears that may be backfilled by the State, we would like to provide you data on the impact of all apartments receiving the homeowners rollback and the centrally assessed local exchanges (telephone lines). We are not clear if the telephone agreement would apply to cable such as Mediacom, but for now we have assumed that it will not. We also wonder, if this apartment compromise passes, will the mobile home parks be next? Below is a chart provided by Iowa City Assessor Denny Baldridge showing the impact on local entities if all apartments are classified as residential. This number does not include dual use properties — such as those downtown that are commercial on the lower level and apartments above — meaning that the ultimate loss of revenue will likely be higher than indicated. IOWA CITY APARTMENTS Tax Loss If All Apartments Were Classified Residential IOWA CITY IOWA CITY SCHOOLS JOHNSON COUNTY KI RKWOOD IOWA CITY ASSESSOR AG EXTENSION COUNCIL STATE OF IOWA TOTAL $360,258,230 TOTAL TAXABLE $174,832,959 $185,425,271 0.0178415 $3,308,265 $360,258,230 48.5299% VALUE OF $185,425,271 TOTAL TAXABLE $2,705,457 $360,258,230 48.52990% $174,832,959 APARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL VALUE OF $360,258,230 TAX LEVY $174,832,959 $185,425,271 AS ROLLBACK APARTMENTS 48.5299% ($ PER $185,425,271 TAXING BODY COMMERCIAL PERCENTAGE AS RESIDENTIAL DIFFERENCE THOUSAND ) TAX LOSS IOWA CITY IOWA CITY SCHOOLS JOHNSON COUNTY KI RKWOOD IOWA CITY ASSESSOR AG EXTENSION COUNCIL STATE OF IOWA TOTAL $360,258,230 48.5299% $174,832,959 $185,425,271 0.0178415 $3,308,265 $360,258,230 48.5299% $174,832,959 $185,425,271 0.01459055 $2,705,457 $360,258,230 48.52990% $174,832,959 $185,425,271 0.00698984 $1,296,093 $360,258,230 48.5299% $174,832,959 $185,425,271 - 0.0009987 $185,184 $360,258,230 48.5299% $174,832,959 $185,425,271 0.00024632 $45,674 $360,258,230 48.5299% $174,832,959 $185,425,271 0.00008358 $15,498 $360,258,230 48.5299% $174,832,959 $185,425,271 0.0000032 593 0.04075369 $7,556,764 This is just for Iowa City units. County Assessor Bill Greazel estimates an additional loss of $150,000 of revenue to the County from apartments outside Iowa City. In addition, attached is information regarding property taxes on telephone companies in Johnson County. The figures are for the current fiscal year. We currently are collecting and distributing $1,365,625 in property taxes on telephone companies in Johnson County. The portion the County keeps is $378,096. These properties are assessed by the Iowa Department of Revenue based on mileage reports filed by the utilities. These figures are for telephone companies only and no other utilities. We remain committed to'helping you in any way possible to get the data you need. Taxable property tax base is stagnant to a total of about 2.5% growth. With a taxable base growing less than inflation, Johnson County can't possibly lose all this revenue, continue to have escalating TIF districts, and still maintain services. Homeowners will suffer by increased levy rates and people,will lose vital services. Thank you for your service. Please contact us if we can be of any assistance. Take care, Janelle Janelle Rettig Johnson County Board of Supervisors 913 S. Dubuque Street, Suite 201 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -4207 Phone: 319- 356 -6000 Fax: 319- 356 -6036 Cell: 319- 330 -0916 Email: IrettigCa%co.iohnson.ia.us www.wohnson-county.com I l i � �'t LO:4L-26-12 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: April 25, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Sarah E. Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney Re: Proposed Acceptance of Outlot B, Mackinaw Village, Part 2 As you may recall, in mid -March the Developer of Mackinaw Village, Part Two of the City of Iowa City proposed that the City accept the dedication of Outlot B, consisting of 24.79 acres along the Iowa River north of Foster Road. While the original subdivider's agreement contemplated that the property would be a privately owned and maintained open space /conservation area ultimately deeded to the development Homeowner's Association ( "HOA "), a pending purchase agreement required either that the property be accepted by the City or deeded to the HOA by the end of March. The dedication of the property was to be for the purpose of public open space and public use subject to a deed restriction preventing development of habitable structures while allowing the installation of trails and other public infrastructure. Upon submission of the proposed deed, the restrictive covenants stated that the City could install up to two (2) limestone well houses on the lot but, more importantly, also stated that the City would be obligated to install a pedestrian/bike trail connecting a current trail on Outlot "C" to the north to Foster Road. In discussing the specifics of the trail requirement with the developer, it was determined that this clause did not contemplate the closure of existing gaps of sidewalk through the development (which is considered part of the trail system), but rather, the creation of a completely new trail within the rugged terrain of the Outlot. Upon inspection by Parks and Recreation and Public Works, it was determined that complying with the trail requirement within two years would be cost prohibitive due to the heavy woods, changing terrain and numerous ravines, as such a trail would require both extensive grading and the construction of bridges /decking. Although staff advised the Developer that it would fill -in the current gaps in sidewalks (existing due to undeveloped lots) and connect the existing trail to Foster Road within two (2) years, the Developer declined to accept this approach and has now deeded the Outlot to the HOA. IN cm� 4-J 101, � Q O 0 cn W ° 14-01 o W .5 14 b-O 00 1-1 CU • pool H U CIS W �� o E RRV ti -0 0 as Cd April 19, 2012 Rodney Lehnertz University of Iowa 250 USB Iowa City, IA 52242 Dear Mr. Lehnertz: IP13 Historic Preservation Commission I L[IL .:.HO I: W'1. 11int;turz htra r_ 1". ka Ci[t. (.1 I am writing on behalf of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission in regard to the demolition of 711 Melrose Avenue to provide entrance and exit lanes for the planned parking lot. As you know, the Melrose Neighborhood has a great many well - maintained homes of historical significance, as established by its listing as a National Historic District. The residents and property owners of the neighborhood, as well as the commission, are committed to protecting the neighborhood. Although it is unfortunate that it is necessary for the university to demolish 711 Melrose Avenue, our real concern is the more historically important structures in the neighborhood. The commission would like to request a meeting with you in the near future. This would be an opportunity to discuss our preservation plans and explore together how we might preserve the more intact portions of this historic neighborhood. Please contact me at ginalie- swaim@uiowa.edu or 335 -3932 to schedule a meeting at your earliest convenience. We look forward to opportunities to find solutions that serve the best interests of the university, the city, and its residents. ncerely, Ginalie Swaim, Chair Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Cc w-Matt Hayek, Mayor Tom Markus, City Manager David Keift Jean Walker Gazette article 4/20 submitted by City Manager U4-26-12 IP14 Funding creates contrasts for senior centers in Cedar Rapids, Iowa City Witwer Center in Cedar Rapids receives no public funding Sharon Stubbs of Coralville (from left), beginning instructor Mary Dusterhoft of Iowa City and Simone Delaty of Wellman wrap up a Taoist Tai Chi practice session at the Iowa City /Johnson County Senior Center in Iowa City on on Tuesday. (Cliff Jette /The Gazette) The Iowa City /Johnson County Senior Center hums from early morning to early evening most days with a program that includes dance classes, book groups, musical programs, financial advice, technology classes, and afternoon movies. In Cedar Rapids, activities at the Witwer Center usually wrap up by early afternoon. "It is totally different here, of course," said Myrt Bowers, director of the Witwer Center. "That's the big difference, they've got monetary support, we don't." While the Iowa City /Johnson County Senior Center receives just under $600,000 this year from the city toward its $868,302 operating budget, non - profit Witwer receives no regular public funding. Witwer Center — "senior" has been officially dropped from its name — is seeing its budget of $1.1 million cut by more than half after turning over its federally funded senior meal program to Horizons, the Cedar Rapids family- service agency. The move, prompted by a reduction in federal funding, transferred 28 food - service employees and their $505,652 in salaries to Horizons, leaving Bowers Witwer's lone full -time employee. Meals were served at Witwer Center's namesake building in downtown Cedar Rapids at 305 Second Ave. SE, where additional programs were also housed. Owned by Linn County, the building sustained damage in the June 2008 flood, and county supervisors voted to sell it to its current owners two years later. Witwer's move to the Ecumenical Center, 303 Second Ave. SE, brought new costs. "When we left the county building, we lost our support for maintenance, lights, utilities," said Bowers. "It's been wonderful, but we don't have our 12,000 square feet we used to." A little more than 1,500 seniors participated in Witwer programs over the past six months, Bowers estimates. Funding creates contrasts for senior centers in Cedar Rapids, Iowa City I TheGazette Karl Hill of Iowa City adds avocado and cucumber to sushi he is making with imitation crab, teriyaki beef and a japanese style omelet during a sushi making class at the Iowa City /Johnson County Senior Center in Iowa City on Tuesday. (Cliff Jette /The Gazette) Meanwhile, the Iowa City center at 28 S. Linn St. boasts fitness rooms, and its spring catalog includes tai chi, Mandarin Chinese, and video production. "After you retire, they're busier than when they were working, is what I hear all the time," program specialist Michelle Buhman said one recent afternoon. The center opened in 1981 as a joint city - county agency in the former Iowa City post office. Johnson County has since opted out of the joint arrangement, instead making an annual contribution toward the budget — $70,000 this year. The center remains a division of the city, the balance of its operating budget coming from a $450,000 endowment and from membership fees ($25 a year for city residents, $40 for those from elsewhere in the county, $60 for non - county residents). There were 1,577 members at last count, Buhman said. The center also holds a daily meal prepared by Elder Services Inc. but has no involvement beyond providing the site, said center coordinator Linda Kopping. Committees of center members manage its operations and program offerings with a staff liaison. http: / /thegazette.com /2012 /04/20 /funding- create s- contrasts - for - senior - centers -in- cedar - rapi... 4/23/2012 Funding creates contrasts for senior centers in Cedar Rapids, Iowa City I TheGazette The Witwer Center on Second Avenue SE in Cedar Rapids. (Cliff Jette /The Gazette) The flood also claimed what could have been Witwer's recent best shot at expansion. The 15 in 5 initiative, conducted 2004 through 2007 by the Greater Cedar Rapids Community Foundation and Cedar Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce, identified a community center that would have included senior programs as a priority project. The proposal was forgotten in the flood's wake. "The multigenerational, intergenerational center just isn't going to go, because of the funding," said Bowers. "When you had the kind of (flood) devastation I can understand why the city can't do it." Another opportunity surfaced last November, when county supervisors approved $5,000 for a feasibility study of a senior - focused residential development on city -owned property in the New Bohemia neighborhood. The facility could include space for Witwer programs, but Bowers said concerns have arisen over the site. "We're still in the real exploration phase," she said. "We're going to go to the next step and meet again, so I'm a little encouraged." Witwer continues to coordinate a modest slate of activities — card games, dances, bingo, and the like — at public buildings in Cedar Rapids and other Linn County communities. "We like to have our members involved in the operations of the Senior Center, and not in a superficial way," said Kopping. "The more ownership the participants have, the happier they're going to be." Kopping sees the center as a key component in Iowa City's popularity among retirees. "The Senior Center provides services and resources that it's been documented keep people healthier and active in the community," she said. "I really look at it as a preventive health care program, and I think we do a darn good job of it." http: / /thegazette. com/ 2012 /04/20/ funding- creates - contrasts - for - senior - centers -in- cedar - rapi... 4/23/2012 Marian Karr From: Tom Markus Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 12:05 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: Property Tax -Iowa City Marian Could we distribute for tomorrows city council? Tom From: Tom Markus Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 12:04 PM To: joe. bolkcom@legis. state. ia. us; mary.mascher @legis.state.ia.us; 'Vicki. Lensing@leg is.state. ia. us'; 'Bob. Dvorsky@leg is.state. ia. us'; 'david.jacoby@ leg is.state. ia. us' Subject: Property Tax -Iowa City Dear Legislators: Iowa City is growing increasingly concerned with the rumored property tax deal that is currently being negotiated. The City recognizes the need to provide relief to commercial property tax owners, but would like to caution against plans that would shift burden to residential property owners and /or force a reduction or elimination of valued public services. The City Council recently adopted the FY 13 budget, which included a $.57 reduction in Iowa City's tax rate. This reduction, which was among the largest municipal reductions in the State, was achieved through careful planning and will not result in a reduction of service levels. The Council and staff are committed to furthering this effort in the coming years ahead. However, such efforts must be done in a manner that does not negatively impact our residents and businesses through fee increases or valued service reductions. The rumored property tax proposals in Des Moines would have a devastatingly disproportionate impact on Iowa City. The changes would force our community to make haste decisions that will likely result in a combination of service cuts and fee increases. It would further derail our commitment to thoughtfully reducing our tax levy and could potentially cause us to raise our rate and thus shift the tax burden to residential property owners. The reclassification of apartments to residential would, at a minimum, eliminate $2.8 million in tax revenue. Depending on the specifics of the language the number could grow past $3.5 million. This would represent 7 -9% of our General Fund. There is simply no way to absorb this type of tax loss without substantial cuts to services or fee and tax increases. There are arguments being made that this cut will happen anyway, due to the co -op and condo conversions that are taking place. To date, Iowa City has lost approximately $300,000 as a result of such conversion. While this number will continue to grow, it is nowhere near the $2.8 to $3.5 million scale. It has been similarly presented that such a change would lead to reduced rents for our citizens. The bulk of such apartments are marketed toward university students and current occupancy rates are very near 100 %. With occupancy rates this high, there is simply no justification that reduced taxes would get passed along to renters. In other words, the market has established the rents and a lack of excess supply will prevent rents from dropping. When you couple the apartment reclassification with any type of rollback, the situation in Iowa City will grow by the hundreds of millions. When comparing the financial impact to other metro cities and our nearby communities, it is obvious that these changes will have a disproportionate impact on Iowa City and other university cities. The changes will place Iowa City in competitive disadvantage both in terms of a residential and commercial standpoint. Increased taxes and fees and reduced services will make it harder to grow and recruit business and will also make it difficult to attract a workforce that will support a growing economy. While intentions to reduce commercial taxes are laudable, I simply wish to urge caution as you consider proposals in the coming days. As language becomes available we will be able to provide more specific numbers. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of Iowa City this legislative session. Sincerely, Tom Markus City Manager IP15 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY APRIL 5, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Beth Koppes, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Walz, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: David Kieft, David Ricketts, Jeff Morrow, Brenda Nelson, Jean Walker, Bill Bogert RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 5 -1 to recommend approval of VAC12- 00001, an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a vacation of the street right -of -way located adjacent to 1 -8 Melrose Place subject to the following conditions: 1. Vehicle access to the parking area from Melrose Place will be one -way. A gate or other device will allow public entry to the lot but will block exit from the lot to Melrose Place. 2. The University will improve the remaining part of Melrose Place right of way including the reconstruction of Melrose Place parking with curb and gutter, four foot sidewalks, sanitary sewer abandonment as needed, water main improvements, and management of storm water. 3. The final parking area design should meet substantial compliance with the City's parking design standards and the Director of Planning and Community Development will have approval authority of the design. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. VACATION ITEM VAC12- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a vacation of the street right -of -way located adjacent to 1 -8 Melrose Place. Walz showed maps indicating the area of vacation and Lots 1 -8 currently owned by The University of Iowa on Melrose Place, which are planned for demolition to become part of a Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 14 parking lot. She said these properties are in the process of being rezoned to P -2, which is the Institutional Public zone. She explained that the City's regulations do not apply to the P -2 zone, but the City does offer them as guidance for the minimum standards for parking areas. She stated that with the expansion of The University of Iowa Children's Hospital some parking is going to be displaced, and this proposed lot is to make up for that lost parking. She said that the area that is being vacated includes a portion of the street as well as unpaved portions, specifically on the east side of the street. She explained that right of way typically extends beyond the paved street because that is where sidewalks and utilities are placed. She explained that in the staff analysis to decide if it is appropriate to vacate right of way they look at its impact on pedestrian and vehicle circulation, the impact on the ability to serve it with emergency access and utility vehicles, the impact on access for the adjacent private properties that remain, and the desirability of right of way for other circulation needs. She explained that with this proposal, public right of way, which is currently substandard and has neither curb nor gutter, would remain along Melrose Place. She said the public street would be widened and the university would resurface it and provide curb and gutter, in addition to a four foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the street. She noted that the three properties that would remain and an apartment building that has a Melrose Avenue address will get their vehicle access from this street. Walz said that in initial discussions with the university staff was concerned because the access point off of Melrose Place onto Melrose Avenue is just 50 feet or less from the Hawkins Drive access, with the latter two being very busy streets. She said some sort of two -way access has to be maintained without having everyone who parks in the parking lot behind the apartment building on Melrose Avenue entering and exiting from Melrose Place. She said that staff suggests that access be restricted so a gate or some other method allows them into the parking lot but bars them from exiting via Melrose Place. Walz noted that pedestrians and vehicles that need to access the properties will still have access, but vehicles going into the parking lot will have to circulate out on the proposed two -way drive to be built on 711 Melrose Avenue. Walz said that the east drive will be a consolidation of two curb cuts. She said that one of the curb cuts is on a property that will remain private and the other is on 711 Melrose Avenue. She said this will be one driveway with two lanes. Walz explained that because the University owns all of this property and the drive, they could proceed without vacation of the right of way. She said staff feels that if vacation is approved they have a better opportunity to improve what remains of Melrose Place and restrict access as well as attaining the screening and setbacks they think are necessary to preserve what is the intact residential neighborhood to the east. Walz said because the university is preserving access and circulation for the emergency and utility vehicles staff is recommending approval. Walz explained that the university would be paying to terminate an existing water line where the public street ends and to upgrade it as well as the street and the sidewalk. She said that staff feels strongly that in regard to screening, the emphasis needs to be on the eastern portion of the lot adjacent to the private residences that are part of an intact neighborhood. She said currently the university is showing an eight foot setback, and the minimum that is typically required in a P -1 zone is ten feet. She said staff recommends that the setback be increased to provide for the maximum amount of screening. She noted that there will be a solid fence along that property line and shrubs and trees as required by the Code. She said staff had also asked the university to provide terminal islands, which are not a requirement in the P -2 zone, and the university has agreed to this, which will allow for the placement of trees in the lot. She stated Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 14 that the neighbors had concerns about snow removal, so the university has designed the lot as something they feel they can clear efficiently. She said the university will also provide storm drainage for the lot. Walz said the neighbors also had concerns about lighting standards. She said the university is aware of the City's lighting standards and will comply with even higher lighting standards. Walz said that the transportation planners have indicated that a third lane is preferred on the east drive due to the concern that at peak times of day cars will queue onto the private drive, possibly creating a situation where drivers get impatient to pull out on the street and not noticing pedestrians. She said the additional lane would better accommodate right and left hand turns out of that drive and will cut the queuing. Walz explained that the only way to add this third land is to get a further easement from the property owner at 727 Melrose Avenue or to remove the house at 711 Melrose Avenue, which is in the Melrose Neighborhood National Register Historic District. Walz said staff recommends approval of VAC12 -00001 a vacation of a portion of the Melrose Place right -of -way subject to the following conditions: 1. Vehicle access to the parking area from Melrose Place will be one -way: a gate or other device will allow public entry to the lot but will block exit from the lot to Melrose Place. 2. The University will improve the remaining Melrose Place right -of -way, including the reconstruction of Melrose Place (paving w/ curb and gutter), 4 foot sidewalk, sanitary sewer abandonments as needed, water main improvements, and management of storm water. 3. The final parking area design should meet the City's standards with regard terminal islands and lighting and should include shade trees as proposed in the submitted plan. 4. Along the east property, where the parking area abuts private properties on Melrose Avenue and Melrose Circle, a minimum setback of 10 feet should be provided with a solid fence or wall in addition to S3 landscape screening. Walz explained that currently the internal parking aisles are twenty -four feet in width and City standards would be twenty -two feet, so staff feels there is adequate room to make these aisles narrower to gain the deeper setback on the eastern edge of the parking lot. Weitzel asked if the owner of 727 Melrose had been contacted about the extra easement. Walz said that question would need to be answered by the university. She showed photos of 711 Melrose Street and explained that it is owned by the university but someone else is allowed to lease it as a rental. Thomas asked if the landscape work in the parking lot meets the City's off - street parking standards for trees and landscape. Walz said that the standard is every parking space should be within sixty feet of a large tree, and while the university's proposal is close, it doesn't quite meet that standard. Weitzel asked what the total size of the parking area is. Walz said that it is over one acre. Eastham asked why the eastern driveway can't be expanded to the west, with another lane Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 14 added to the west side of the drive. Walz said it could be added to the west, but that is private property and would require an easement. Eastham asked if the City is required to vacate land at the request of anyone. Holecek stated they are not. She said this is a discretionary process, and the analysis that Walz explained as to what the City looks at when it is requested to vacate property is the analysis that is used. She noted that typically, adjacent property owners are given the opportunity to acquire the property after vacation. Miklo said that in this case, staff feels that by vacating and cooperating with the university, the City has some ability to address the traffic and landscaping concerns. Eastham asked if staff has the university's long -range physical expansion plan for south of Melrose. Miklo said they did not. Thomas asked what hours the parking lot will be open. Walz said that it's open twenty -four hours a day, but it's thought that most of the traffic will be before 7:00 p.m. and starting early in the morning. Koppes asked if all the residences that are left are privately owned. Walz said there were, but that 711 Melrose Avenue was owned by the university. Eastham asked if the university can make a curb cut and access onto Melrose Avenue of a design of its own choosing. Walz stated that the university could not because that requires access to the public right of way and they would have to get a curb cut permit from the City. Dyer asked why there was no vegetation buffer along Melrose Place and the parking lot. Walz said that had been discussed and given the condition of Melrose Place and the way it's lawns are being used as a parking lot, staff's concern was mainly for the neighborhood to the east. Eastham asked if Melrose Place will continue to be used in this manner. Walz said that staff has notified Housing and Inspection Services at the City, and the property owners have been made aware that parking on the lawns is not allowed. She said that because the demand for parking in the immediate area around the hospital is so great, that this will probably continue to be an issue that will have to be enforced. Thomas asked if residents on Melrose Place could park in the lot once it was built. Walz explained that the lot will be permit parking for hospital staff. Koppes asked if currently street parking is allowed on Melrose Place. Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 14 Walz said she does not believe that it is allowed now. She said in the future it will not be allowed but that it will need to be enforced. Swygard asked if given the closeness of both Melrose Place and the other entrance and exit into the proposed lot and the proximity of Hawkins Drive, was any consideration given to only allowing right hand turns to exit onto Melrose Avenue. Walz said there was not. Walz explained that once you are in the parking lot, you can only exit on the eastern driveway. Koppes opened the public hearing. David Kieft of The University of Iowa referred the Commission to the photos in the handout from the university. He explained that in the area between the hospital and Kinnick Stadium parking Ramp Two with approximately 700 parking spaces is planned to be razed early next year to make way for the new children's hospital. He said that it will be several years for the lot to be reincarnated underground at almost the same location. Kieft explained that the reason for this proposed parking lot is for the planning of the new children's hospital that will be commencing early next year. He said that the university has included neighborhood representatives on its design committee including Tom Maxell, who owns the property immediately east of the proposed parking lot site. Eastham stated that the proposed lot contains 289 spaces and asked how many parking spaces were being displaced by the construction of the new hospital. Kieft reiterated that about 700 parking spaces will be displaced with the razing of the ramp but simultaneously the indoor practice field will be taken down and replaced with another surface parking lot that will contain about 200 cars. Eastham asked why the university is requesting a vacation if staff has stated that the parking lot could be built without the City vacating the right of way. Kieft said that without the vacation the number of cars that can be parked here is limited because the area that is now the street could not be used to park approximately 50 cars. He said that the lot would be an awkward design without vacating the property. Weitzel asked if the university has pursued the easement issue with the property owner at 727 Melrose Avenue. Kieft said they had preliminary discussion with that property owner and are waiting for his response but they have no idea what he is inclined to do. Eastham asked what the net loss or gain of parking spaces will be as the hospital expands. Dave Ricketts of Parking and Transportation for The University of Iowa explained that not only will they be tearing down Ramp Two in January, but eventually Ramp One will be razed and another underground facility will be expanded to replace Ramp Two. He said this is a fifteen or twenty year expansion plan. He said that Ramp Two will be gone and 700 patient parking spaces will be eliminated. He said they will get 300 of those spaces back by displacing over 300 employees from Ramp Four. He said the remainder of spaces for patient parking will come from additional space by the practice field and from space inside the existing ramps by restricting employees and from some other policies, which will net several hundred spaces there. Ricketts explained that they expect to have the ramp back by 2015. He said they will lose 1100 or 1200 Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 14 patient parking spaces over the next five or ten years that will have to be replaced in increments by temporarily displacing employees and building temporary parking. Eastham asked if they planned to put a parking ramp on the proposed parking lot Ricketts said the university does not desire to cross Melrose and build something now or in twenty years. Eastham asked if it would be a desire within thirty years. Ricketts said he could not say what the university would want to do that far in the future. He said he thinks it's amazing that the hospital is reconstructing itself on -site. He said they rely very heavily on parking demand management because they have 17,500 employees, 31,000 students and 5,000 visitors and patients every day. Koppes asked about the discussion regarding putting a road through the Field House and if that would displace more parking. Ricketts said the portion of the Field House called Main Street will come out and will be replaced by a forty foot road so that patients going to the hospital will no longer have to go up Melrose Avenue and that some parking will be displaced, but he could not state a precise or approximate number. Dyer asked how it computes if the proposed project is for staff parking yet patient parking is what is being displaced. Ricketts said they are displacing patient parking right around the hospital, and staff who park adjacent to the hospital are being displaced to use their space for the displaced patient parking. He stated that the Melrose Avenue now contains partial patient and partial staff parking. He said all the employee parking will be displaced from that facility. Dyer asked if they are losing 700 spaces in Ramp Two. Ricketts affirmed this and said that they are getting some of that deficit back by managing the remaining patient spaces so employees can't use those spaces, thus gaining several hundred spaces there in the past few months. He said that additional employees will still have to be displaced in Ramp Three to make up the difference, and the Iowa River Landing, which opens in October, will draw off some of the demand for patient parking. Dyer asked if Ramp Two would need to be torn down if the university wasn't building things on top of it. Ricketts said that it wouldn't. Walz explained to Eastham that staff is aware of the constraints of the hospital and that the university fully intends to put a parking lot at the proposed site with or without City approval and when staff evaluated the situation, staff felt they had more control over access points and design with a vacation. Miklo explained that in the end the parking lot will be more efficient with the vacation. Eastham explained his long -range concern is in putting a building on the proposed site Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 14 Walz said that is a possibility in the future and that the City would have no control over it. Eastham said that would depend on if the university needed the rest of the Melrose Place right of way to put a building there. Koppes said they could build a building there right now without any comment from the Commission. Walz asked if Eastham was questioning if the vacation was approved for a parking lot would a building be put there instead. Eastham clarified that he meant eventually. Walz once again said there was no way to know, and the City would have no control over it. Koppes asked what the plan was concerning pedestrians walking across Melrose Avenue. Ricketts said they intended to have the sidewalks as much as possible direct people to cross at the traffic signals at Hawkins Drive or Melrose Place. Koppes asked about football parking. Ricketts said they intend to make it a donor lot which he believes tones down the crowd to some extent. He said they have worked very closely with Tom Maxwell to give him what he wants. Koppes asked about the snow removal concern. Ricketts said that Maxwell's specific concern was about backing up signals sounding in the night. He said they could look at turning off the signals, but they are used for safety reasons. He said the proposed lot is a significant size, and it will take a while to clear, and clearing will be done at night. He confessed that he didn't have a good answer for Koppes. Koppes asked where the snow would be put. Ricketts said they most likely will push it to the south end or wherever they can, and then come back later and haul it out. He said he thinks in the next couple years they will be experimenting with snow melt systems where the snow is dumped into something that melts it down. Eastham asked about the parking uses of the property on the east side of the proposed lot. Ricketts explained that 711 Melrose is now owned by the university, and anyone who was not living there and parking on the property has been kicked off. He said the only cars parking there now are the ones associated with the house. Eastham said he was concerned about the long -range plan for this parcel. Kieft said the hospital just completed a master plan that it presented to the Board of Regents in February, and it didn't contain any plans for the area south of Melrose. Eastham asked what the timeframe was for that master plan. Kieft said it was a ten year master plan. He stated that because of changing circumstances, the university doesn't usually plan beyond ten years. Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 8 of 14 Jeff Morrow of Anderson -Bogert Engineers in Cedar Rapids referred back to Swygard's question about restricting egress on the east driveway of the parking lot to right hand turn only. He declared that at least half to 75 percent of the traffic using the lot wants to go west. He said that with right hand turn only, some people will turn left anyway, some will pull out onto Melrose Avenue and make a U -turn, and some may go up to private drives to the east and turn around because it's very difficult to make people go in the opposite direction to their path. He said that on Melrose Place, much of the residential parking will be eliminated, so there will be fewer people coming out there. Swygard said that since the majority of lot parkers would be leaving at about the same time of day, what about making three lanes comprising a left turn, entrance and right turn. Morrow said that would be ideal but that will depend on negotiations with the adjacent property owner. He said that without their consent, the house at 711 Melrose Avenue would need to be razed in order to build three lanes. Swygard said she is concerned about the high, high volume of traffic in that area at 5:00 p.m. Morrow said their study looked at a scenario where all of the cars are trying to leave during peak hour, but the displaced employees who will be using this lot enter and exit during the span of a two and one -half hour period. He said even if you cram everyone into the same hour that the street peaks, it should work. Swygard asked if in their traffic study any traffic was accounted for from Lot 43, for example, that funnels out onto Melrose Avenue and heads east. Morrow said they looked at different variables but found that Melrose at Hawkins is still going to see about the same amount of traffic. Walz mentioned that the City traffic staff believes that it's preferable to have three lanes, but that there is a space constraint. Thomas stated that the plan didn't meet the City's standards for shade trees or for screening. Thomas asked what is proposed along Melrose Place and said he was concerned that cars might jump the curb. Brenda Nelson of Confluence Landscape Architects responded that it is currently a curb and it is paved instead of landscaped because it's a fairly narrow strip and there is car overhang, so she doesn't think that any plant or tree could survive. Walz stated that although it's a permit lot, anyone can get into the lot but at the risk of being towed. Nelson said that anywhere there is an intact neighborhood, the screening plan consists of a six foot high solid fence. She said on the parking lot side of the solid fence there will be some ornamental trees periodically and some landscaping in front of it to create a buffer. She said they are working with the neighbors on the other side to provide additional screening if they would like it. She said the neighbors in the southeast corner prefer not to have anything tall because of an existing garden, so shorter shrubs are proposed. Koppes asked what the plans were for the green islands in the lot. Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 14 Nelson said it is minimal landscaping there because they could be a possible snow removal area, so landscaping is primarily trees in the center. Jean Walker of the Melrose Neighborhood Association referred to information she had previously submitted to the Commission that stated the neighborhood's reluctance to have this parking lot at this site, particularly as the historic district they worked so hard to establish is in this area. She stated that the neighborhood did not have a choice because the university has a lot of power, and they can basically do what they please. She said the Association agrees to this vacation pending the decision of the owner of 727 on granting easement to allow for the two lanes of traffic. Walker said the Association's concern is the preservation of 711 Melrose Avenue, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. She said they are agreeable to the displacement of the barn from the rear of 711 over to the proposed parking lot site. She said she thinks there needs to be a longer -term plan by the university to find alternative places for parking, e.g. Finkbine, which is currently a surface lot that perhaps has the potential to become a ramp. She noted that she believes what is preventing that is expense, but she also believes that cost has to be weighed against preservation of an historic neighborhood. Walker said the two lane road way is problematic unless the owner gives the easement, so a three lane drive would be the death of 711 Melrose Avenue. She wanted to know if the university had approached the property owners of the houses on Melrose Place to see what they want in the way of screening. Weitzel asked Walker to elaborate on 711 and if it is a contributing property or if it's individual eligible. Walker replied that it's a contributing property in the district, and it's part of the integrity of the Melrose Historic District. She said that both the house and the barn are about 100 years old, and the barn is the last in the district. Eastham asked what the historic status of the property to the east of 711 is. Walker said it is also part of the National Register of Historic Places and is a contributing property. Miklo said findings in the report for the National Register show two key themes. He said the first is that Melrose Avenue was a rural road that initially featured some grand Italianate houses from the 1870s and the second is the developments that occurred in the 1920s associated with the expansion of the university. He said there are several Tudor and Colonial style houses that form the bulk of the Melrose Neighborhood Historic District, but 711 is not one of the key structures and does not fit into those themes nicely, but just happens to be along Melrose Avenue. He said it was built around 1905, and it has been remodeled with vinyl siding, and the porch is enclosed, so that's probably why it was determined not to be a key structure like the more significant properties located to the east. Walz said that staff did not include the condition of saving 711 Melrose Avenue because the university has driveway access that is not contiguous to the vacation, and it's not dependent upon the vacation. She said because there's a safety concern there, the university can go forward with a two way. She said staff is not requiring the three lanes, although that would be safer. Eastham asked if the university has the right to incorporate the drive at 727 into the new driveway. Miklo said that that ideally that driveway would be removed, but the amount of traffic that it Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 10 of 14 generates is probably not going to be a great concern if the property owner at 727 Melrose Avenue doesn't agree to consolidation of the drive -way. Walker said one of the earlier plans was that traffic egress from the lot would be a single lane drive at 711. Walz said staffs concern was with the proximity to Hawkins Drive forcing all the traffic to come in Melrose Place. Walker reiterated that if the property owner at 727 doesn't grant the easement, 711 Melrose Place is in peril. Miklo said that the safest situation would be three lanes, one in and two out. He said that if the property owner at 727 does not cooperate, the only way to achieve that would be by removing the house at 711. He said there would be two fairly narrow lanes if the property owner does not grant the easement. Walker asked if there was room for two lanes and the house without the easement. Miklo referred her to the traffic engineer. Bill Bogert of Anderson -Bogert Engineers stated that he designed the proposed parking lot. He said that a certain width is needed on the driveway for lane capacity and for pedestrian traffic. He said there is just under twenty feet from the lot line to the building, and they would not be able to get two lanes of traffic and pedestrian traffic accommodated on that area. He said without the easement, two -way traffic would not be possible. Eastham asked what the plan is if the easement is not granted. Bogert said he knows of no plan, but that the removal of 711 would allow for a driveway. He said they have discussed other options including one lane out with all the incoming traffic on Melrose Place. He said neither his company's engineers nor the City's engineers wanted that. Eastham asked if they had considered the option of putting the parking area some other place. Thomas and Koppes suggested that they move 711. Bogert did not respond. Walker said she knew of one option that had been ruled out, and that was to split the two -way so one lane is on the west side of 711 and the other lane would go through the day care. Bogert said that with that scenario if one car is entering left and another is exiting left, there will be traffic problems on Melrose Avenue, so the engineers did not prefer that option. He said it's still very narrow for a one way between 711 and the daycare, particularly trying to account for pedestrian safety. Miklo questioned the value of 711 given its condition, the amount of traffic, the position of the drive, and pavement surrounding it. Walker said that the Association feels it's not ideal for 711 to be an island with traffic on either side of it, but there needs to be some plan to preserve it. Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 11 of 14 Koppes closed public hearing. Koppes asked for a motion. She asked if the Commission needed to vote on it at this meeting. Miklo said they did not, but staff would advise that they do unless there is some compelling reason such as needing more information. Weitzel moved to approve VAC12- 00001, an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a vacation of the street right -of -way located adjacent to 1 -8 Melrose Place subject to the following conditions: 1. Vehicle access to the parking area from Melrose Place will be one -way. A gate or other device will allow public entry to the lot but will block exit from the lot to Melrose Place. 2. The University will improve the remaining part of Melrose Place right of way including the reconstruction of Melrose Place parking with curb and gutter, four foot sidewalks, sanitary sewer abandonment as needed, water main improvements, and management of storm water. 3. The final parking area design should meet the City standards with regard to terminal islands and lighting and should include shade trees as proposed in the submitted plan and along the east property where the parking area abuts private properties on Melrose Avenue and Melrose Circle. A minimum setback of ten feet should be provided with a solid fence or wall in addition to S -3 level landscape screening. Swygard seconded. Koppes invited discussion. Weitzel said when considering the fate of 711 Melrose Avenue it is important to keep in perspective the Secretary of the Interior's standards and what integrity means, and that is a continuum of historic properties from a contributing property that's a minor element of a district to one that's a key element or an individual eligible property. He said this type of building at 711 Melrose Avenue is fairly unique but it doesn't really fit into the context of the historic district per se and is also from a time period where many other properties are still extant in Iowa City, it's covered in vinyl siding and the porch has been enclosed, and it appears that the interior has been heavily modified. He said once that condition exists you can say that the historic integrity is already diminished. He said that leaving the proposed parking lot out of the discussion, the siting for this building is then substantially diminished. Weitzel said that as ideal as it would be to keep an historic building or additional screening for the rest of the district, weighed against safety and value of this historic property he is not particularly impressed with this building. Eastham said that in looking at the Southwest District Plan, which includes the Melrose Neighborhood, it states that "it is an important goal of the City to preserve and stabilize existing residential neighborhoods close to the university and the downtown. Achieving this goal will help to prevent urban sprawl on the edges of the community, reduce commute times, provide a diverse residential community, preserve historic resources, and support the vitality of the city's central business districts. Efforts should be made to encourage the university to work more closely with the City and the surrounding community as it develops future expansion plans in areas such as the Melrose Neighborhood. The City must take a more assertive role in the zoning and regulation of university properties if it is to achieve these important goals." Eastham said he and other Commission members have been involved with several decisions regarding Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 12 of 14 the university's inclinations about using land that they have acquired south of Melrose Avenue and the preferences of Melrose residents for the future of that area. He said he doesn't think that to agree to this vacation because the university will put in the parking lot regardless is the best thing to do. He said he doesn't think the vacation complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Weitzel said he believes the university will build a parking lot somewhere and in this case the Commission has a chance to form an opinion about the screening and other aspects. Eastham said he agrees with Weitzel about 711 and would just as soon see the building removed and the exit and entrances to the parking lot designed to best fit the needs of the people using the lot. Koppes said the question for her is what public good it does not to vacate it. Eastham said it would reduce the number of spaces by 50, which is not an inconsequential amount. Koppes mentioned that the road is already in bad shape and everyone could enter and exit on Melrose Place. Eastham replied that it is the university's interest to improve the road. Koppes responded that they could decide not to do anything with the other road and exit everyone out of Melrose Place. She said that granting the vacation affords the opportunity for better traffic flow and direction on what will happen to the proposed lot. She said she thinks that by not approving the vacation, they could make it much worse. Thomas said he supports the use of Melrose Place as part of the parking scheme but he would like the design of the lot to meet the City standards. He said that because the driveway lanes are wider by two feet than the minimum required, there may be an opportunity to create a wider buffer strip along Melrose Place and provide some visual screening. Weitzel said that because 711 could come down whether they agree to it or not, the Commission should assure that the S -3 screening, ten foot setback should be the full depth of the lot wherever there is parking or driveway abutting that area. He asked if they could make an amendment to that effect. Eastham agreed with Thomas that if the parking lot is built here, and the City has some negotiating leverage with the university in how the lot is designed the lot should definitely meet the screening standards that are in the Code. Koppes said that comments had been made that snow removal would be more difficult if that were so and would affect the neighbors more. Thomas said he calculated the lot would consist of two acres of paving. Eastham added that that would be nestled in a neighborhood. Weitzel said that was reason to try to meet the City's screening standards. Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 13 of 14 Dyer said if there isn't screening there and if the property owners on the other side of the street should change those properties to something considered to be more appealing, the screening will never be there. Miklo said to consider that staff feels this proposal could meet the standard by removing two feet from one of the interior aisles and adding it to the buffer on the east side of the lot. He said you could remove two feet from each of these aisles and add it to the west side of the lot to bring it to five or six feet, which would provide some buffer but would not meet the ten foot standard. He said that staff felt that given the current condition of these properties, it was more important to have the screening on the east where there is an historic neighborhood. Thomas moved to amend condition #3 of the original motion to read: The final parking area design should meet substantial compliance with the City's parking design standards, and the Director of Planning and Community Development will have approval authority of the design. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -1 with Koppes voting no. A vote was taken to approve VAC12- 00001, an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a vacation of the street right -of -way located adjacent to 1 -8 Melrose Place subject to the conditions as listed in the staff memo and amended, and the motion carried 5 -1 with Eastham voting no. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: March 15,2012: Weitzel moved to approve the minutes. Thomas seconded. The motion carried 6 -0. OTHER: Miklo said there was an upcoming training session for Boards and Commissions regarding open meetings. He said he would send the Commissioners detailed information. ADJOURNMENT: Dyer moved to adjourn. Thomas seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote. z O 0 _D) O V O z z N O Z z z Q J CL r. v z w w VQ m Z Q J Q N Q D � z W LL H Q E O 0 N O �Z X W D C: V) O O 2.100az CL Q II p u u w M x00z W Y MXXX0XXX ti N X X X X X X X N M X X X X X X X N �W (D CD mNU.)U -)M X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J J Z= J 2 a 2 0Vgama0� t�QYWQaW wEl=wCL 2uwv�wa O 12 - Q>- zaW Q�O LL. YdU) =w -� E O 0 N O �Z X W D C: V) O O 2.100az CL Q II p u u w M x00z W Y