Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-09-04 Transcription September 4,2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 1 September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session 5:30 P.M. Council Present: Bailey, Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Champion, Correia (arrived at 5:45 P.M.) Staff Present: Helling, Karr, Davidson, Boelk, Fowler, Holecek, Rocca, Fosse, Knoche, O'Brien, Morris, Kopping Other Present: Volland Plannin!! and Zonin!!: Wilburn! ... going. We've got Planning and Zoning Items c, d, e, and f. c) VACATING COURT STREET, WEST OF MADISON STREET AND FRONT STREET, SOUTH F BURLINGTON STREET (V AC07-00004) Davidson! Good evening. We have two vacations this evening to consider at the work session. The first one is to vacate Court Street, west of Madison Street and Front Street, south of Burlington Street, for the University Rec Center project, and you see those delineated on the diagram there. Two blocks of Front Street, immediately south of Burlington, and one block of Court Street. Urn, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered this on the 19th of August. Urn, a couple of things. . .well, this has been considered, consistent with how we consider any vacation. There are seven factors that are evaluated, and you see those in the staff report. The impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation, impact on emergency and utility vehicle access, uh, impact on access to adjacent private properties, desirability of the right-of-way for future access or circulation, location of utilities, potential use of the property for public use, such as park land for example, and any other relevant factors, and this was evaluated according to those factors. One issue that did come up were.. .pertained to some previous vacations in this vicinity, and specifically access to the river. Obviously, if this vacation goes through, access to the river via Court Street would be impeded. In fact, it's impeded already. I mean, basically directly west of Court Street is the University Power Plant, and this has been considered previously with the vacation that you see here. This vacation shows two vacations that occurred in 2002, again, for the University in order for them to consolidate some properties down here, uh, and be able to have flexibility for their Master Planning in this area. There were two vacations, urn, and you can see that along Harrison Street, there has been preserved an access to the river. This was very important to all of us involved with this, and it was determined consistent with, I might add, consistent with the Near-Southside Redevelopment Plan, which was adopted a few years ago by the City Council, that via Harrison Street there is the ability to have future access to the river. If you look at that Near-Southside Redevelopment Plan, it is hoped that eventually that area south of the Power Plant could be redeveloped for This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4,2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Wark Session Page 2 more public-type access - fishing specifically. A lot of that that goes on down there - possibly a boat launch, just whatever it would happen to be, but it's hoped to formalize that more, and as the University does develop their property in this area, have better public access to the river. That is insured via this vacation. Uh... Vanderhoef/ Do we know when that, uh, is going to get opened up and be very apparent to people, that that is an access to the river? Davidson! We do not know that, Dee. I mean, the University has a strategy right now for, according to their Master Planning framework, and it's a very key term- framework. They call it a framework and not a plan because they want to have the ability to respond to things with more immediacy when they need to be responded to. A lot of times that a specific donor with a specific project in mind. They want to have that flexibility. The.. .what they are trying to do, and what the Rec Center project is consistent with, is move a lot of what I would call back office type uses that are down here - the laundry, the motor pool, probably eventually Cambus, urn, and have more academic type uses down here. Recreational type uses. More active type uses in the area south of Burlington Street. As that planning proceeds, Dee, is when that access to the river will hopefully be opened up. There is not a specific date assigned to it that I know of. Vanderhoef/ And likewise, the trail then that goes through City Carton and down that way. Davidson! Yes, yes. Vanderhoef/ That will all be in one project. Davidson! Yeah. You've heard me.. .many of you have heard me say, uh, publicly many times that this area, the near-southside.. .the Near-Southside Redevelopment Plan actually just goes to the railroad tracks. Take that and extend it all the way down to Highway 6. That is going to be the new principle redevelopment area in Iowa City over the next ten years. Ten years from now, that area is not going to look like what it looks like now. We have a lot of development pressure in that area, a lot of competing, uh, people trying to acquire property, not only the private sector, but probably four or five government entities, being the City, the University, the County, the School District, and the federal government, also have interest in that area. So, it's going to look very different in ten years, but we do have.. .well, we have a strategy currently, two strategies actually - the University ofIowa Master Plan, and the City's Near-Southside Redevelopment Plan, and then of course as you all know, the Central District Plan is being updated, and takes that all the way down to Highway 6. You should see that probably.. .November or December. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4,2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 3 Vanderhoef/ Okay. And then the other question that your memo brought up for me was, it appears - if I read your memo correctly - that the new recreation department will be in the spot where they were planning to build a parking ramp. Davidson! Now, say that again, Dee. Oh, yes. According to the Master Plan a few years ago, the site of the new Recreation Center was identified as a parking facility. They are now considering the, the lot.. .it's basically two square blocks entirely owned by the University, with the exception of the Jail property that is catty- corner from that. That is one of actually several areas which they are considering for an east campus parking facility at this time. That's an on-going study that the University has. Vanderhoef/ So there's still no timeline on when they're going to, uh, be able to move their people out of the Transit Center, into their own parking ramp. Davidson! Well, there is an approximate timeline. Vanderhoef/ Which is? Davidson! Joe and Chris have already told the University that when Hieronymus Square comes online, that'll be 160 permits that we have committed to Hieronymus Square that will come out of the University's allocation, which is approximately 300, and Hieronymus Square is anticipated to come online in approximately two years, assuming they get going this fall, which is the plan. Then the couple of other projects that are in the works, specifically the 301 S. Dubuque project also we have committed to parking for that. Depending on how fast that occurs, that's when the remainder of the 100.. .140 would also be taken out of the University's allocation. Vanderhoef/ So it's.. .it's more imminent than it has been for... Davidson! Joe and Chris and I have met with the University representatives. They are aware of this. We're trying to do some planning with them. I think you've heard me say we're trying to do some downtown parking planning right now, given the.. .some of the CB-5 zoning that has gone to CB-lO, south of Burlington Street. We're trying to do that, uh, talking to some of the other governmental entities down here so we can at least have a coordinated plan when we come back with you. Vanderhoef/ Uh-huh. Davidson! Uh, you see a picture here of Front Street, uh, just to put it into better perspective for you, that's being proposed for vacation, and there's Court Street. We're standing at the intersection of Madison, looking west, and that is about everything. Urn, similar to other vacations, easements will be retained for utilities or they are required to relocate them. Any questions? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4,2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 4 Elliott/ Jeff, just very generally, it's.. . from what you're saying, there is going to be a much-improved look on the east bank of the Iowa River in that area in the relatively near future, is that right? Davidson! I do believe that's true, Bob. Elliott! Good! Bailey/ So how does this affect.. .that's Crandic, right? Urn, tracks there? Davidson! Yes. Bailey/ There'll be an easement or whatever for the tracks, because that's part of the development. Davidson! My understanding, Regenia, is that Crandic has essentially maintained the main line right-of-way, okay? For the main line that goes down to Hills, and that all the other property, all the sidetracks down there have been sold to the University. Bailey/ Okay. Davidson! That is at least what they. . .if it hasn't been accomplished already, that's what they're working on. Urn, and so, you know, this is consistent with the University trying to consolidate as much property as they can. Bailey/ But we want, I mean, Crandic will maintain a track there. I mean, isn't that.. .that's the line that we're talking about for the... Davidson! They will maintain the main line, that's correct. Bailey/ Great! Vanderhoef/ And that's the. . . Bailey/ ... Transit Intensive Development South, right? Vanderhoef/ Right. Davidson! Right. That... that main line is part of the plan that we have for connecting the Coralville River Landing neighborhood with the near southside at some point in the future with a trolley car type system. Bailey/ So this won't have an impact on that plan at all? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 5 Davidson! No, this does not. No. Vanderhoef/ The previous one was, and that was our concern when we vacated in 02. Davidson! Yeah, Crandic has recently invested in the line down to Hills. So, they're, I think, pretty well committed to maintaining that main line down through there. Champion! Jeff, can you just remind me, and show me where the river access point would be on this map? Davidson! Yeah. Well, can I show you on this map instead? Champion! Yeah. Davidson! This...these are the two blocks of Front Street, and this is the one block of Court Street. You're being asked to consider vacation of. . . this is the next block down, Harrison Street. Harrison Street was vacated in the past. The University.. . conveyed to the University. This block, as well as this block; however, there is a public access easement over...I should have probably stated that, Connie. I didn't state that very well before. Champion! That's okay. Davidson! A public access easement over this vacated parcel, which allows public access to the river. Champion! Okay, good. Thank you. Vanderhoef/ And that would be where a train station would be, in that vicinity. Davidson! Could be, yeah. Vanderhoef/ So that people could get to it. Davidson! Could be. Any other questions on this? d) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED CONVEYANCE OF THE VACATED PORTIONS OF COURT STREET WEST OF MADISON STREET, AND FRONT STREET SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 18, 2007. Davidson! The next item, Item d then, is to set. . . well, to consider a resolution which would set the hearing, uh, for the conveyance then of that, should that be approved. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 6 e) VACATING 102 FEET OF THE 20-FOOT WIDE NORTH-SOUTH ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED IN BLOCK 102 SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET AND EAST OF CLINTON STREET (V AC07- 00005). Davidson! Item e then is another vacation. Uh, this one in conjunction with the Hieronymus Square project. Uh, there used to be a north-south alley that ran through block 102. This area right. . . well, about right there, about three-quarters of a half block is where the Court Street Transportation Center is located. This half block was vacated, urn, to the Hieronymus Square partners a couple of years ago, in conjunction with that we then received a parcel from them to essentially create an L-shaped alley through block 102 that was intended to eventually serve the Hieronymus Square project, and I think all of you are aware that that is still the plan. Urn, we have since worked out with Hieronymus Squarepartners a plan for subterranean parking in the Hieronymus Square project, over which this.. .or, let me phrase it another way. Under which, the parking will be constructed underneath this alley. Excuse me, starting right there. That is the property line with the Hieronymus Square project. So this portion here will have subterranean parking. Because of that, we have... we have decided that we do not as the City want the public to have responsibility for maintenance of that alley, because of the issues with. . . there starts being leaking from the alley into the subterranean parking, we do not want it to be our problem. We want it to be the private developer's problem, and so for that reason, what we have done already in this portion of the alley, and are proposing to do with this portion of the alley, is to vacate it, but retain a public access easement. So, for all intents and purposes, it's still an alley through that property, over which the public has a right to be on, but the maintenance of it would then fall to Hieronymus Square partners. Urn, where's my arrow? Here. This portion here, which, urn, would, which has access then to the property which is currently being redeveloped here, CB-5 project for the Clark's, urn, this will remain public.. . conventional public alley. The Hieronymus Square partners have committed to, in conjunction with their maintenance of this, that they will do snow removal on this part of it, as well, but otherwise the City would have maintenance responsibilities for this portion here, which we're not proposing.. .there's no action proposed tonight. What is proposed is this portion here to be vacated, contingent with a public access easement retained and then the maintenance responsibility goes to the private developer, and there is a picture of the site. Uh, we are talking about, well, here you see the Clark's project under construction. So, it's approximately from that point right there.. .to where the L-shaped alley will come across right about in this vicinity here. So it's this portion right here, up against Court Street Transportation Center that, uh, is proposed for vacation. Uh... Vanderhoef/ Has Public Safety signed off on that? In particular about, urn, fire trucks getting in and out of that area, and that right-hand turn? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 7 Davidson! Yeah, the Fire Chief who is in the audience.. .yes, he's still there.. .uh, is part of our Joint Staff Committee where these are considered prior to coming to you. So, yes, there will be... Vanderhoef/ There's plenty of turn space... Davidson! .. .there's no issue with the Fire Department. Vanderhoef/ Okay. Davidson! ...in terms of this proposal. Urn, and then similarly, there will be easements retained for the utilities or it will be their responsibility to relocate those. Ally questions? f) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO CONSIDER THE CONVEYANCE OF THE VACATED EAST-WEST AND NORTH- SOUTH ALLEYS IN BLOCK 102, IOWA CITY, IOWA, TO HIERONYMUS SQUARE ASSOCIATES AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 18, 2007. Davidson! Item f then is the, uh, similar resolution, uh, to consider conveyance then, if you do approve this item. That is it. Wilburn! Does the Council wish to have Jeff run over any of this during tonight's formal meeting? Champion! I don't need him too. O'Donnell/ I think it's fairly clear. Wilburn! Okay. 326 Fairchild Street Drivewav/Northside Residential Parkin!! Permits (lP2 of 8/30 Info Pkt; IP3 of 8/30 Info Pkt): Wilburn! Urn, we, just for the Council's information, we received, urn, you received tonight a letter from an attorney representing Ms. Ta. This came in, urn, late Friday, and that's why you're just receiving it now. Urn, we had also included Northside Residential Parking Permits on this, urn, and correct me if I'm wrong, Council, uh, there had been some desire by some Council Members to try and, uh, I don't know if it was figure out, uh, any other potential options, uh, in response to the issues that, urn, Ms. Ta had raised, urn, also included in the packet was the last. . . the last study that was done that included some conversations with the neighborhood about residential parking permits. Urn, I don't believe it was the Council's intention to open up a public hearing, public discussion, about northside residential parking permits, urn, but to allow, to include it on there as part of this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4,2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 8 discussion with the 326 Fairchild driveway request, that that allows that discussion to occur. If Council wishes to take any further action related to residential parking permits related to that study that Jeff Davidson included in the packet, urn, if they wish to make any changes or anything like that, urn, I would, I don't...I would suggest that, uh, urn, enough notice perhaps wasn't given for the northside neighborhood to, ifthere's any.. .you know, if any formal action were to take place on that. Urn, but otherwise, Ms. Ta has, I refer back to the letter we received from, uh, excuse me if I'm pronouncing the name wrong, Gregg Geerdes, but he had requested a few minutes to address the Council, uh, I believe on her behalf this evening. Urn... Champion! Can I raise a question? Wilburn! Sure. Champion! In his letter, there's kind of a threat of litigation. I wonder if we should even be discussing this. Holecek! Well, I think all the facts are out there. I think you could go into Executive Session, based on, urn, what he is saying is basically everything that's been before the Council already, although there is a more credible threat of litigation, because it's signed by an attorney; however, it was on the Council's work session to discuss the driveway. I think you can discuss the driveway. Eleanor has done a very good memo that outlines where you do have discretion and where you do not have discretion. What three things need to happen for this driveway to go forward. Champion! .. .Board of Adjustment and.. . okay. Holecek! Right, and a minor modification, over which you have no discretion or control, and the removal of the tree, or ordering the City Forester to remove the tree. So I think the discussion points are out there, and if Council feels that they need to discuss it in an Executive Session, I believe you could, but I also don't feel that there would be any harm in having the informal discussion that you anticipated having anyway. Champion! Okay. Elliott/ I would feel. . . Wilburn! We also.. . excuse me, Bob.. .we also, urn, like I said, you are receiving this this evening. Uh, it came in late Friday and we had the holiday there. Uh, by the time I talked to Sarah today, there wasn't time to give notice on, without an emergency.. .notice for an Executive Session, and so I guess in an effort to, urn, allow that anticipated discussion, urn, but also because of the potential, urn, threat This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 9 of imminent litigation, to allow the attorney to say a few brief comments, uh, this evening, given that we weren't going to be able to go into Executive Session. Elliott/ I was just going to say, I was one of those who wanted this discussed at a work session, but with the attorney now involved, attorney for the other side involved, I would feel very uncomfortable talking about some of the things that I might have brought up, and I would rather not discuss this in open work session at the present time, because of this. Wilburn! Since he is here this evening, I was going to allow him to comment. . . Elliott! I have no problem with that. Wilburn! .. . for three to five minutes, and then if we want to listen, uh, well, we will listen, but I mean, but not. . . to please use discretion about any comments. Sir, if you wanted to approach the podium, and please state your name for the record. I'm sure I've been ruining your last name, but... Geerdes/ Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is Gregg Geerdes. I'm a lawyer here in Iowa City, and I will endeavor to keep these comments informative and not adversarial in nature. That is our goal, and that is my purpose and my client's purpose. Urn, I have some photographs that I'm going to show you in a few minutes, but in a nutshell what they're going to show you is that my client's residence is a property which has neither an alley behind it, or a drive to the front of it, and I've attempted to walk and drive that immediate neighborhood, and I believe it is the only property on either side of the street in that area, which is, uh, limited in that respect. Urn, what my client simply wants to do is obtain what the City Code says that she can have, and that is the City Code which says all properties are entitled to receive, or to have access to a public street. Urn, I would agree that if we could have that access through an alley or through a private easement of some sort, that we would need to take those other alternatives, but we do not have those options available to us. We've tried. There's no alley behind, and the properties in that area are, uh, of such a tightly confined nature that, urn, an easement across the neighbor's property is not, urn, feasible. Our neighbors, of course, do consent to us having a driveway. You've previously been provided with a copy of their written consent. When my client endeavored to begin this application process, however, she was met with a considerable amount of, of.. . for lack of a better word, of red tape and obstacles. I believe when you look at this from a management point of view, the amount of people that are involved, the amount of staff that are involved in making the decision about whether to grant a driveway is a rather daunting number. By my count there were at least seven or eight staff members involved in this process. Urn, we don't intend to in any way harm the parking situation. We intend to help the parking situation, by getting a street.. .by getting cars off the street and into a driveway. So with your permission, I'd like to start by, if I could, approaching you and handing you some photographs, which I think show this situation. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4,2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page lO Wilburn! You want to just pass them up here? (unable to hear Geerdes in audience) You'll have to be on microphone though to make comments, so... O'Donnell/ You can give her the copies and then... Geerdes/ No, this is my only one, so I'm going to explain it and hope that she passes it down. 326 Fairchild is my client's property. Again, it's an older home, built relatively close to the street, but no closer or no farther back than its neighbor's. All of the properties are built along the same set-back line for what, back in the 1890's, must have been a set-back line, and that brings up a problem because underneath the City's standards there are limitations to the amount of permanent paved improvements, such as driveways, which can be constructed in a set-back line. The problem, of course, is that my client's house is to a large point constructed on what is now the set-back line. So when the staff made their calculations, they included the square footage of the house as being part of the permanent improvements that are constructed on the set-back, which caused my client to fail the permanent improvement's requirement of your design standards. What we've proposed to do is no different than what other houses in the immediate area have essentially done. The next one is 301-303 Fairchild, which is just down the street, across the road, a very large property, as you can see here, that its front yard has essentially all been covered in concrete. The next one is 528 Davenport, which is one street south, I believe, and you will see a driveway recently constructed immediately along a property line with less space than my client's proposed to have. The last one I'll show you, I have others but in the interest of brevity I'll limit it to this, 216 Fairchild, which shows a similar driveway constructed, urn, on the same street with a similar reduction in side lots. So in a nutshell, that's our situation. We've proposed simply to make a driveway, which we feel the City ordinance allows us to do. We feel it's no different, without explanation I am going to give you the rest of these, and I'll let you look at the neighboring properties. Urn, but urn, we proposed to do nothing more than what's been done in the neighborhood already, and we, uh, simply desire to be, uh, given the same courtesy and, uh, ability to construct, which has been granted to others. Thank you for your attention. Wilburn! I will again refer Council to the memo that was included in tonight's info packet, IP3, from Eleanor. Urn, the first describes the uh, the Board of Adjustment process, which has been reiterated that we.. .that we cannot rule on Board of Adjustment items. Urn, is there.. .uh, interest on, urn, by a majority of Council in trying to change the City Forester decision? Elliott/ Yes. I would like to talk about all of this in Executive Session. That would be my preference, if others agree. Correia! Well, I'm interested in talking about it. Also, I don't know if we need to talk about it in Executive Session or not. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page II Wilburn! I guess what I was putting out, we've been given where we have, uh, discretion and where we don't, urn, and so if, uh, what 1.. .just so that there was, uh, again what I was attempting to do at the last meeting, ifthere's.. .if we can reiterate or reaffirm what options Ms. Ta does or.. .does have, at least from the interest of the Council, if we could discuss those, if the majority feel that they can't do that without touching on the other issues, then I would suggest maybe Executive Session would be.. .go ahead, Sarah. Holecek! If I can just make a point, urn, and I think that this may get us started as far as that discussion. Mr. Geerdes and Ms. Ta are asserting that there is a right, and that the ordinance grants the right for every property to have a driveway, and our office respectfully disagrees with that opinion. It does not say that every particular property has the right to a driveway. There may be other requirements - you may have to get a cross easement, you may have to have access of an alley - there are other standards that must also be met. So, with.. . starting with the premise that there is no right to have a driveway, I think may help with your discussion. Or not. (laughter) Wilburn! And this, again, this process, these are statutory, urn. Correia! So can I just. . . Wilburn! Go ahead. Correia! .. . ask questions, and then if you think shouldn't, isn't part of what we can talk.. .you'll just tell me? Holecek! I think a lot of this has already been aired in the public in opinions and in memos to you, both from staff and.. . from multiple staff. Correia! Well, I'm just.. .there was in one.. .can I just ask a question? Holecek! Certainly. Correia! Just throw out a question? Wilburn! Sure. Correia! Okay. In one of the correspondence that we had. I don't remember exactly which one, urn, there was some mention that in 2002 or 2003 a previous owner had received permission for a driveway. Holecek! That's not an accurate factional representation by any point of the record. Correia! Okay, okay. So that never happened? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4,2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page l2 Holecek! No, I believe there was an inquiry. Correia! Inquiry, right, there may have been a request, but it was never... Holecek! But when that inquiry was explained that it appeared that it would exceed the 50% paving limitation, which would then require action by the Board of Adjustment, that particular applicant didn't proceed any further with it. Correia! Okay, so there was an application, but it wasn't approved. Holecek! There was an application. . . Wilburn! It was never pursued. Holecek! There was an application that was not pursued. Correia! Pursued, okay, right. Gotcha, that was my question. Thank you. Wilburn! Anyone else? Vanderhoef/ Just one picture here, urn, 515 Davenport, urn, appears that it has a second lot on it, and I guess my question would be whether that particular one, the two lots have been combined. Holecek! I can't answer that, Dee. 1... Vanderhoef/ I know you can't answer it right now, but I think that would make the difference of whether there was 50% of the front. Correia! So how long has this 50% of the front setback been part of our ordinance? Holecek! To my personal knowledge, for at least three years. Correia! Okay. So some of these. .. Holecek! or years... we've had some issues about overpaving in the past. Correia! Right. So, some driveways that may be more than 50% of the setback could have been installed before our current ordinance, that has that? Holecek! There is that potential. I don't know when this particular, 00, provision was in place, although we have had situations where persons paved without getting appropriate approval and then had to remove paving, to meet the 50%. Correia! Uh-huh. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4,2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 13 Wilburn! And since, whenever it was.. .been part of the Code, it would have, an exception would have to go to the Board of Adjustment. So... Holecek! Correct. Correia! Uh-huh, right. Champion! Well, it seems to me that that would be their next step. Vanderhoef/ I agree, Connie. Correia! Well, I think though that there's.. .there's the Board of Adjustment issue, but then there's... there are the other issues that we have to make, to... in order to support, you know, the Forester decision, urn, the approval of the neighbors, and the building. . . the decision made by the Building Official. I mean, those things are.. .would also have to go with the Board of Adjustment opinion. Is that what I'm... Holecek! What I'm saying is that the, what the memo says is that the Board of Adjustment is an independent body who has to independently make its decision. There is a fee and a process associated with that. Correia! Right, right. Holecek! There's also the minor modification provision that also creates due process rights and a hearing, so the neighbors get to participate in that, and there is a $50.00 fee with the minor modification process. What you have discretion over as a Council is whether or not you agree with the Forester's, urn, denial of a permit that will require the removal of a tree, of the tree. Vanderhoef/ Okay. My question is, even if the tree is removed, would we still not be in that 50%, of. . . Holecek! It would still require dispensation from the Board of Adjustment... V anderhoef/ Yeah. Holecek! .. . and still require dispensation through the.. .minor.. . excuse me, minor mod process. Vanderhoef/ Uh-huh, that's what I thought, so even if the tree were taken down there's no guarantee that. . . that uh. . . Champion! I don't see any reason to approve taking the tree down, if the Board of Adjustment isn't going to grant the right for a driveway. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page l4 Correia! But what if the Board of Adjustment grants the right to the driveway, but we don't want to remove the tree? Champion! Well, I don't want to remove the tree. Correia! Well, that's what I'm...(several talking at once). Elliott/ That's why I would like an Executive Session, so we could talk about it freely and discuss where we are and what to do. O'Donnell/ I agree with you, Bob. I understand at one time Mid-American had said they were going to remove the tree because it was too close to a pole, so the tree is not my concern. I also, you know, the northside parking permit - I don't know how much strength that had at the last Council meeting. I didn't...I didn't pick up that much of it, but I agree with Bob that, uh, there's questions that need to be asked on this, and I'm uncomfortable asking them out of Executive Session. Wilburn! Are there others who wish to go to... Holecek! May I weigh in again? Wilburn! Sure. Holecek! Urn, it may be...it may be important for the applicant to know whether or not the Council supports the removal of the tree, before they go through the other processes in which they have to invest additional time and money. If ultimately the removal of the tree is indeed in the Council's discretion, and those issues, I don't think the discussion of any of those issues really imperils or, uh, supports our position in the litigation that has been threatened. So, it kind of comes down to.. .it's, one way or the other, but one could say we would support the removal of the tree, provided that you get a minor modification and dispensation from the Board of Adjustment, but that puts the decision squarely in front of you. Champion! The other thing. .. the other reason I have trouble making this decision is because I think if we're going to talk about neighborhood parking permits, that would eliminate some of the problems with parking on the northside, and the reason to want this driveway, to take down the street, and to kind of destroy that nice little persona that that part of the street has by putting another driveway in there. So, I think it's more complicated than it appears. Wilburn! I guess I would just point out that, uh, the study had, uh, one of the points in the study was that, urn, even ifthere's a neighborhood parking permit process, that doesn't guarantee that you're going to get, urn, you're not going.. .you may not have a, you have no guarantee you'll get a spot in front of your place (several talking), and so I don't, I guess I disagree that that's going to necessarily impact, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page l5 that this is not going to get what she wants. Urn, there are two Council Members who said they would like to be in Executive Session, uh, regardless of discussion about taking down the tree. Are there others? Correia! Can we have a show of hands on who'd be willing.. .to take down the tree, provided those other. . . what Sarah just said, happens? O'Donnell/ That's a good thing to do. Find out. Bailey/ So we're going to.. . alter the nature of a neighborhood for one individual, who wants to potentially pave more than 50% of her front yard, which is also altering the nature of the neighborhood. I mean, I just think that we need to take that into consideration. It's an odd precedence to set. I mean, part of the charm of my neighborhood, and I'm speaking from that perspective, are the tree-lined streets, and not the concrete access to your residences. Champion! Well, why don't we just poll the Council and see who's willing to take down that tree. Wilburn! You can't just show hands. You're going to have to state your name for the record. Urn, I will say, I am... we have a process in place with our City Forester making an opinion, when and when trees should not come down, and urn, so I'm, urn, the City Forester's already expressed his opinion about this so 1...I for one am not willing to, in addition to the reasons that Regenia stated. Vanderhoef/ This is Dee. I'm not willing to take the tree down... Champion! This is Connie. Vanderhoef/ ... for the same reasons. Champion! I'm not willing to take the tree down. Wilburn! That's three. O'Donnell/ Mike's willing to take the tree down. Can always replant the tree. Bailey/ Not a 60-year-old tree. Elliott! Bob is willing. Your neighborhood loses its charm when you can't get to your house. Wilburn! So. . . Correia! I'm willing, Amy. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4,2007 Special City Council Wark Session Page l6 Wilburn! So, Bailey, Vanderhoef... Wilburn, and Champion are not willing to. So that answers the question, at least with the current Council, if, urn, even if they were to receive, urn, the exception from the Board of Adjustment, that that second issue is not addressed. Okay? O'Donnell/ So in effect this ends it right here because there's no reason to pursue this any farther, and go to the Board of Adjustment. Wilburn! Uh, those are the... Holecek! What this does is tell the applicant that before this Council there are not four persons who are willing to take down the tree, in the exercise of their discretion, which you are dully authorized to do. If the applicant wishes to then pursue the minor modification and the Board of Adjustment action, get those in hand and then come back and ask again, there's nothing that would prevent them from doing that. Wilburn! Okay. So there.. .there are choices, albeit... Holecek! But they at least have some direction, and an answer from your authority, from the discussion tonight. Wilburn! Right. Okay. All right. Helling! Mr. Mayor, just so I'm clear on the issue ofthe northside parking permits, that issue came up prior to this even being brought up. That was suggested by several Council Members to put it on the agenda. The only reason it was on the agenda tonight was because a couple people had tied it to this, so I'm assuming you want to put that on in the near future and talk about it some more, or not. Correia! I'm interested in talking about it. Champion! I am (unable to hear). Bailey/ Well, the Northside Neighborhood Association has it on its agenda for the 27t\ and so I think that talking about it after that discussion would be most appropriate. Champion! Exactly, I agree with you. Bailey/ I mean, because there wasn't clear consensus before. I doubt there will be clear consensus after that meeting. Helling! And keep in mind that our process is should you be interested, a majority be interested in this, we would through the Neighborhood Services Coordinator go back to the neighborhood and generate input that way, before it would come back to you for a final decision. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4,2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page l7 Wilburn! Okay. All right. Helling/ So we'll hold off until after the 2ih. Wilburn! Yes. All right, thank you. Sandusky Storm Draina!!e: Vanderhoef/ Mr. Brian! Boelk/ Good evening, Brian Boelk, Iowa City Engineer. Wanted to give you a brief overview and update on the Sandusky storm sewer and drainage issues, and as most of you are probably already aware of, we've had reoccurring storm water and drainage problems in the vicinity of Sandusky, Taylor, and Briar Drive for the past 15,20 years probably. Back in the 1970's, this development and subdivision was one of the, uh, one of the first storm water basins in the State of Iowa, and at that time, it was incorporated that the storm water storage was into the yards and street, per the design at that time, so, uh, follow my arrow there. This being Sandusky Drive, and here's Briar Drive which loops around in between, between...in the back yards of both these strings of property. This was serving as storm water storage, at that time. Obviously today we commonly see those in outlots and common areas, and not in between residences. I believe Public Works first had a recorded complaint back in 1989 in this area, and there have been numerous since. Urn, some of those leading up to 1995 in September, where a public meeting was held to discuss some of these flooding and drainage issues. That resulted in a uh, a study and report being done by Shive Hattery on the Sandusky drainage and Southgate ditch report, which kind of got into hydraulic calculations and the drainage areas. It more or less gave us some data on that area. This was then followed up in 97 by MMS Consultants who put together plans and specs for the Sandusky Drive-Southgate Avenue-Stevens Drive storm sewer improvement plan, which uh, I'll be referring to as Option 1. This plan was later, urn, rejected per residents and the public at the Council meeting, which I'll get into here briefly. Following that, urn, dismissal of that project, correspondence continued until the late 90's between consultants and Iowa City, as well as between internally with staff, and then, uh, in 99 also MMS Consultants put together a berm grading plan for a specific property at 1033 Sandusky Drive, which was receiving flooding into their home, as a result of, uh, the storm water in this area. Again, complaints have continued throughout, but we.. .we received a couple more in 2003, which then, urn, resulted in another engineering review done by Howard R. Green, in 2003. It just more or less summarizing everything that's happened in the previous ten years or so. Which then leads to this year in 2007, which as many of you know, numerous large rain events, resulting in additional flooding and drainage problems this year that we haven't had in quite a while. Some of which is backyard flooding, as can be seen in these pictures, and these are taken from the property owner at 1126 Briar Drive, so I appreciate the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page l8 photos here, but this is between Sandusky, again, between Sandusky and lower Briar Drive. Here's another where you can see the trampolines in the backyards and water going up to those. This is, I believe, from 1126, from the deck area of their property. Also, we see street flooding in this area on Sandusky Drive itself, which is seen here. This would be on Sandusky itself, looking from the front side of Sandusky Drive. And then we've also seen some homes, uh, inundated with water as of this past year, in particular at 1132 Briar Drive and 1126 Brian Drive, and I believe Mrs. Jacobs was here, has spoken to you before, during Council meeting, and also provided some video. Going back to that project development, uh, Option 1 back in 97 by MMS Consultants, what their plan was to do was to increase the size of the existing storm sewer that was running between Sandusky and Briar Drive, which again was an unusual design because it went from a larger pipe, from 36 inch pipe, down to an 18 inch pipe to store water. Their proposal was to take that 18 inch and outsize it to a 42 or 48 inch storm, try to take the ten- year storm event and be able to pipe that all the way through. Uh, estimated costs at that time were about $360,000 which just roughly estimating would be about $475,000 plus today. The impacts at that time, obviously, were the major disturbance of the backyards and landscaping. Those who had fences, private fences, gardens, anything in the backyards would be greatly disrupted. Uh, to get a 42 inch pipe or 48 inch pipe would take a great deal of excavating, as well as grading out to get that through the backyards. The benefit is that we would have kept that one storm sewer system in place, upgrading its size by only having one to maintain still. The results at that time were quite a bit of opposition met at the Council meeting by the property owners that would be impacted with those backyards, and the project was not built due to the mixed support. One of the, uh, I guess side notes is there seem, there's a lot of turnover in that area, so at times one year people would have support for the project, and then a couple months later someone would be out and others in, and then it would go the other way. This is just taking a look at a closer view there, and you can see the 36 inch pipe then goes down to 18 running between there. Again, they would be, that plan was to take all this 18 inch out. Actually up here as well. 42 or 48 inch there, again, disturbing all the yards through here. And then some grading and swell for the overland drainage. Uh, since then and with these recent rain events and flooding that we've received this year, I've taken a look at an additional option that may not impact the backyards and residents as greatly, and this would be installing a new storm sewer along the south side of Sandusky Drive itself, and more or less picking up the water at Taylor Drive, almost at the intersection of Taylor and Sandusky, and diverting it, by-passing it if you will, and running it along to the west, along Sandusky Drive. A rough estimated cost on that is $580,000. You would have disturbance and disruption to driveways and the right-of-way along the front of Sandusky Drive, and most likely would be taking out at least the south panel along that stretch of Sandusky Drive, the street paving and sidewalk paving itself. Again, benefits of that would be less impact to the property owners in the backyards and getting access to those yards, and easier maintenance accessibility later in the future - we wouldn't have to get into yards to maintain that storm sewer. It'd just be basically off the street as typically our storm sewers are today. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 19 Uh, taking a look at that, that's picking up that whole area there, urn, surrounded by that back line, pretty much goes to this.. .that intake here on Taylor Drive. We'd pick that up, bypass that, divert it to the west down Sandusky. There's also a line that comes up from Apple Court there, from the north. Urn, it goes, it drains down south and also adds into that 18 inch. We could also pick that up at that point with intake, again diverting that water from these backyards, kicking that out west. Now the one good thing that...I guess I failed to mention to this time, was that there is a detention basin pond in place, it has been in place for quite some time, but was never really utilized. It was very under-utilized, so we have the storage and everything there. It's typically just not used because it's storing back in these backyards. So we would be running 42 inch pipe along the south side of Sandusky, taking it up, and also changing out this 18 inch up here and then going into the detention pond there. This is.. . sorry, go ahead. Champion! That would eliminate the flooding on the street, but would also eliminate the flooding in the backyards? Boelk/ Yes, the intent would be... yes, correct, exactly. We would be taking that whole mass of water there from the east and actually picking it up on that new storm sewer, rather than between the yards. This is just kind of a closer up view there, again, installing the new storm sewer pipes, and there'd be intakes along the route as well, and then kicking that up north into the detention. Vanderhoef/ So how much space and what's the size of the pipe going out of the detention basin? Boelk/ Well, that's a good question, Dee. Urn, I forget to be honest with you (mumbling) what that outlet is from that detention (mumbling). That's a good question, Dee. I can certainly get that answer for you. Vanderhoef/ Because I'm presuming you're going to hold it back in the detention basin until it can go out that. . . that, uh, pipe out of the retention basin. Boelk/ Correct, and it looks like there's some, and again, I'd have to verify this, but according to some of these mapping, 30, 33 inch pipe that goes out of there. But I'm sure we have.. .1'11 have to take a look at that. Vanderhoef/ You know, if it...if it doesn't impact that area because it gets too much water too fast, and can't get out of there. I'm no engineer, but... Boelk/ No, that'd definitely be looked at, the capacity of that detention pond, and what that. . . Vanderhoef/ And whether it needs, has it filled in, whether it still has the same capacity that it had when it was built, or has it. . . This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4,2007 Special City Council Wark Session Page 20 Boelkl Yeah, it's a pretty stabilized pond. That's all grass area. Like I said, usually.. .typically serves as a dry detention area. But, yes, that would definitely be looked at. Elliott/ From.. . from an engineering point of view, the process you just now outlined compared to, you called the previous one Option 1 which was rejected by the residents. Is this new one, would you perceive it to be equally effective at remedying the problems? Boelkl Yes. Yes I would say it would be. Elliott/ And therefore it would appear to be less.. .less invasive to that which the neighborhoods have expressed concern previously? Boelkl Correct, based on previous conversations, yes. Like I said, you'll still obviously be, it'll still be a construction project and it'll still be on the street. Elliott/ Face validity says that this appears to be something that. . . that might work, and would like to see, hear what the residents have to say. Vanderhoef/ Tell me about how many street trees we have, uh, there and how much they're going to be impacted, because their root system is down underneath that street right now, so if we start cutting into the street, how many trees are we going to cut the roots off of, and they will definitely die. Boelkl Yeah, you're catching me today, Dee. I was thinking about that this morning. I did not get out there, excuse me, get out there in time to take a look at the number of trees, but yeah, that's certainly something that would be assessed in more detail, ifthe design went into more detail. I know there's, I believe thirteen driveways, uh, I believe thirteen driveways that would be crossed with this new storm sewer pipe. So again, you'd have some disruption to those driveways, urn, like any construction project, you know, on a street with residents, but yeah, as far as the street trees itself, I can't give you an exact number on that, but again, can certainly get out there and check that out. Vanderhoef/ That's a huge impact, and you just heard our discussion about taking out street trees. Boelkl Right, you bet! Elliott! The only thing, if I had a choice between saving as valuable as the tree is in my front yard, and it guides me, shades me from the afternoon sun. If I had a choice between saving that tree and having water in my basement and ruining my basement every half dozen or ten years, there's no question. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4,2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 2l Boelk/ And also remember in that Option 1, you're losing trees through the backyards by going that route, as well. Vanderhoef/ The neighborhood...in my mind, the neighborhood has to weigh where the least amount of damage is, and that they can get consensus. Champion! I think we should send it back to them, let them come back with Option 1 or Option 2. Vanderhoef/ That's what I'm... Champion! Then they have to decide if they want us to do one of these, or have water in their basements, in their backyards. Helling! That's what we're asking you for tonight. This would not be a final approval of this concept. It would be taken to the neighborhood and worked through with them, and urn, and then, you know, work closer to the final design and then come back to you. Then you'd know if the neighborhood is willing to support it. Elliott! (several talking) .. .cost is comparable? Boelk/ Yeah, you know, like I said, roughly I'm estimating some costs from 97 to today. I'm probably shy of 500,000 and roughly 580,000 right now. Elliott/ Half million somewhere, yeah. Champion! And I would like to send them back with, that they have to choose Option 1 or Option 2. I don't want to be discussing this again in four years when we have more rain. It's going to be their choice - Option 1 or Option 2. Bailey/ You're saying that we're going to do something. Champion! We're going to do it. Bailey/ Okay. (several talking) I agree. Champion! We've been hearing about this as long as I've been on the Council, which is way too long! (laughter) Vanderhoef/ And for the people who have lived there all that time and gotten water, it's far too long. (several talking) Correia! Yes, but the Council does decide. Champion! Oh, yes! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 22 Correia! The neighborhood...I mean, we get opinions from the neighborhood, but it seems there's additional public safety issues by not addressing this problem if we have standing water on the street when there's heavy rain. Champion! I'm willing to do either option. I say let the neighborhood choose which option. Correia! I like the second option in terms of the long-term benefit for maintenance, from the City's perspective. Wilburn! Not having to go back in. Correia! Not having to go back into...I mean, I think that that makes the most sense, urn. Boelk/ ... that 18 inch, that going between the yards, the majority of that would stay in place, serving just as drainage area there, and also, I would like to note that we also had the storm water utility fund in place now that can help support that, that back. .. ten years ago we did not have. Champion! Thank you. Wilburn! And I'm sure whichever option is consensus or pick, if there are people who don't want to see it, they'll appear at a Council meeting and let us know. (laughter) I think you've got your go-ahead. Boelk/ Thank you. Vanderhoef/ I'm sure you've got it! A!!enda Items: Item 14 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR THE MCCOLLISTER BOULEVARD PCC PAVEMENT (HDP- 3751(628) - 71-52) AND MCCOLLISTER BOULEVARD BRIDGE (HDP-3715(634) -71-52) PROJECTS. Correia! I just had a question on number 14. This is. . . this is in our current CIP? Helling/ Right. Correia! Okay. Item 11 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 23 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.c. Vanderhoef/ Urn, Item 11, uh, in the report we're talking about there are 71 units built there, but it also crosses my mind that, uh, a number of those units have been built with CDBG or combined funds with the Housing, uh, Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship, or the Housing Fellowship. Elliott! What item, Dee? Vanderhoef/ Eleven. Elliott/ Eleven, thank you. Vanderhoef/ And I'm thinking that the Fellowship built three duplexes, is that right? Davidson! Sorry, Dee, I don't have the exact number, but there have been some. Vanderhoef/ I'd like to know those numbers. Davidson! .. .multi-family building, as well. Vanderhoef/ And the multi-family, I'm thinking around 16. Davidson! I think that's probably very close, Dee. Vanderhoef! So I'm thinking 22 out of that 71 have been built with public monies. Davidson! Roughly that's probably fair to say, yes. But that was also part of the design of the project... Vanderhoef/ Oh, yeah, I understand that. Davidson! .. .to have a combination of housing types. Vanderhoef! It concerns me that the private sector, uh, when you say 71 units, there aren't that many from the private sector. Correia! Although, Dee, those units, homes that were built with some public money, the public money was a small percentage. They also included private financing, as well, especially the Housing Fellowship, I mean that's... Vanderhoef/ To purchase. Correia! Well, to package all of those dollars together to build those, and now they're being occupied, and, I mean, it's not 10% public. That's all I'm saying. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4,2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 24 Vanderhoef/ I'm not complaining about those units. What I'm trying to say is how many units has the developer, uh, actually gotten the public interested in purchasing, or custom building. Champion! I guess 50 something. Just subtract. Elliott! Well, I think this has been a mistake from the get-go, and it did.. .it's been clear up to now, and it is abundantly clear that this was a mistake. Now we have to find do we get out of it. Champion! Oh, I think you just let it go. It's doing fine. Elliott/ Oh! This has nothing to do with the downturn in housing. There was a sign out there more than a year ago. No down payment, no closing costs. I mean, it hasn't been moving. O'Donnelll Jeff, urn, there's other contractors that have purchased lots out there and built, urn, 24 units and so forth, and I understand that those are pre-sold in many cases, and in virtually all cases, they're sold before the unit is completed. I'm wondering, urn, what's the difference? Why is PDC having so much problem selling when these other contractors have sold before construction is finished? Davidson! Well, obviously, the model out here in general is different, and that was part of the City's involvement in it, understanding that some of you politically agree or disagree with the concept. Where staff came at it was that there needs to be choices and that this was a choice we were not seeing the private market provide. Uh, we still believe it's a good choice. We believe, uh, hopefully that the success that we believe will eventually be shown in terms of it being built out will then translate, and in fact, some of it's translated already. We're starting to see certain elements of traditional neighborhood development in the other subdivisions, not something with the consistency of the Peninsula development project. That consistency and that sort of harsher, uh, model compared to what is more conventional, I think, has led to some difficulties in terms of financing. I'm told it is harder to get conventional financing because it's considered more of a risk right now, uh, by the banking community. So, you know, we believe there are some factors that it's not been a totally even playing field, urn, that has led to some of the, that has led to this development not building out as quickly as some other subdivisions, but certainly we feel like the overall downturn, uh, in the housing market, which has related to a number of. . .I mean, it's not just local. It's throughout the country, uh, that that's been part of it, as well. The developer approached us because they simply did not believe that they were going to be able to meet the 2008, January 2008, requirement, given where they were right now, but they feel like with the two year extension they will be able to. Vanderhoef/ How many undeveloped lots are presently platted out there that are for sale? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 25 Davidson! Well, all of Phase 2 is platted, so that total was, uh, 88 plus 55, uh, about 143. So subtract 71 from that and that's the number, so about 72 units, ifI'm calculating that correctly (several talking) about 72 units, Dee, that would be platted lots where.. .there are that many platted lots where 72 dwelling units could be built. Vanderhoef/ Build in two years? Davidson! No, they're only required to do half of Phase 2, which.. .Phase 2 requires 55, they have four or five built now, so 27. They'd need to do 22 more units to meet their requirements. O'Donnell/ Do we know, Jeff, how many out there are unsold at this point? Davidson! I do not know, Mike. O'Donnell/ It seems to me, if you have other contractors out there that are building, and selling successfully, that there has to be a reason. Is the pricing a, I've not seen any of the pricing... Davidson! When you say out there, Mike, do you mean... O'Donne11l I mean the Peninsula. Davidson! The entire Peninsula, not just the Peninsula neighborhood, right. Yeah, I mean, they have formed a consortium group out there where they're doing marketing together with all the, sorry, was it Mackinaw Crossing or something like that, urn, where they're doing marketing together, and all of the entities involved in that have indicated to me that they have experienced a similar type slow down. Mackinaw has not been moving at all and that is a more conventional type subdivision. They're considering some other options, as well. Wilburn! When I bike through there, there's "for sale" and all over the place, not just on the part that was part of the Peninsula. Champion! Well, part ofthat is there's also private contractors building in the actual Peninsula neighborhood now, too. O'Donnell/ Those are all sold. Champion! Yeah. Davidson! We did meet just this afternoon with the new manager of the property who will be in attendance at the formal meeting tonight, in case you have a specific question for him. He did indicate that even just with the beginning of the football This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4,2007 Special City Council Wark Session Page 26 season there's been much more activity out there in terms of, uh, people making inquiries. They take advantage of those football Saturdays and make sure they have open houses every weekend, and, I mean, he sees it picking up already. He's been involved with the Idyllwild development just down the hill, and is now managing the Peninsula, you know, and really feels the target for two more years out is very realistic. Elliott/ You said the Mackinaw project, is that the one that's being developed by the.. . (several talking).. . along the interstate? Davidson! .. .across from the Elks Club, yeah, between the Elks Club and the interstate, right. Vanderhoef/ And what do they call the one that is on the upper Peninsula, but not part of our... Davidson! Urn, that is, uh, Oakmont Estates. (several talking) Oakmont Estates. That's the cul-de-sac, it's actually connected, but.. .but connected to the Peninsula neighborhood by the cul-de-sac back there, that's Oakmont Estates. And I would say that's approximately maybe a third to a halfbuilt out right now. Vanderhoef/ Just nothing that you can see from the interstate. Davidson! Right, that's correct. Vanderhoef/ All those lots. . . Davidson! Then of course there's the two 16-plexes there, as well. I think those are the four entities that make up the Mackinaw Crossings. Any other question about the proposed amendment? Wilburn! Other agenda items? Item 9 CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "USE OF PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED, "COMMERCIAL USE OF SIDEWALKS, SECTION 3, ENTITLED "USE FOR SIDEWALK CAFES," TO ALLOW FENCING TO REMAIN YEAR ROUND ON CAFES LOCATED ON CONCRETE PLATFORMS AND TO CLARIFY THAT CAFES MAY BE LOCATED ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Elliott/ Oh, I had a question on Item 9. Just to make sure I understand it, in the description it said the staff recommended that the Public Works Director have the discretion to approve a cafe on concrete platform. I would assume that doesn't This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4,2007. September 4,2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 27 mean quite what it says. Because that would mean that it does not have to come before the Council. It says that the Public Works Director could approve it. Wilburn! If it's not the sidewalk. Karr/ Ifit's on private property. Wilburn! Ifit's on private property. Karr! If it's on private property, and does not affect the sidewalk. Elliott! Oh, okay. I was reading it wrong. I thought it was referring to a situation similar as we just recently discussed. Karr/ There's no change to Council (several talking). Wilburn! Other agenda items? Item 6 APPROVING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRE STATION #2 DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT EST ABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. Item 7 APPROVING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SENIOR CENTER ADA RESTROOM RENOVATIONS PROJECT ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. Helling! Mr. Mayor, urn, Kumi is here to answer any questions that you might have abut the.. . either the Senior Center restroom project or the Fire Station, in terms of design and so forth, and assuming that you.. .you either don't have any questions or get them answered now, I would send her home and she wouldn't have to stay for the formal. . . Karr/ They'll be Items 6 and 7. Champion! I think they can go home. O'Donnell/ I think they can go home. Those are great ideas! Something we need to do. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 28 Elliott! I'm disappointed you don't want to stay and listen to us pontificate. (laughter and several talking) Vanderhoef! No, she's going to go for a walk. Wilburn! Any other agenda items? Item 10 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "PUBLIC WORKS," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED, "CITY UTILITIES," ARTICLE G, ENTITLED "STORM WATER COLLECTION, DISCHARGE AND RUNOFF," TO DELETE THE EXEMPTION FOR CONCRETE TRUCK WASH OUT. Karr/ Dee, did you want to have Rick talk about Item 10 so that he doesn't have to stay, or unless he'd like to stay? That was the concrete washout. Was there any discussions from.. .the concrete truck wash. Vanderhoef/ Uh-huh. I got my own. . .I got my explanation early, uh, from Rick, but I thought maybe some of the others would like to hear what that was all about. Wilburn! Do you wish to hear it now, Bob, or do you want to wait untiL.. Elliott! Yeah, I'm just interested because the washout for those concrete trucks is very important to the trucks and the companies, and just so we do something that's even-handed. Fosse/ Right, and what we're doing now is becoming consistent with the state and federal regulations. Our local ordinance, we eased into it a little bit, and now we need to become fully compliant there, so that all washouts occur.. .so that they don't occur into the streams during the storm sewer. It's because of the alkalinity, and then also the impact on aquatic life. Elliott! Where can they occur? Fosse/ They can do them in the concrete construction site washout areas. If there's available spot in the grass, or just in the dirt. The important thing is that it soaks into the soil, rather than going directly into the storm sewer. Elliott/ Okay. Good. Vanderhoef/ And doesn't leach into the water, into the streams, too soon to change the alkalinity of the water, and kill the fish. Fosse/ And it can also affect their gills. V anderhoef/ Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007. September 4, 2007 Special City Council Work Session Page 29 Elliott/ You want the fishermen to kill the fish. Not concrete! Vanderhoef/ Well, some of those fish we want to clean up the bottom too. Wilburn! Any other agenda items? Anyone wish to have Council time? Champion! Can we defer that until after our (unable to hear). Wilburn! Okay. All right. See you in 19 minutes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special Iowa City City Council work session meeting of September 4, 2007.