Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-29 Transcription#2 Pgge 1 ITEM 2 RECONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION TO DEFER FOR SIX MONTHS THE ORDINANCE VACATING THE TWENTY- THREE FOOT WIDE GRAND AVENUE COURT RIGHT-OF- WAY, COMMENCING FROM THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MELROSE AVENUE AND EXTENDING NORTHWARD FOR A DISTANCE OF TWO HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE FEET. Champion: I'd like to move the reconsideration. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, second by O'Donnell. Discussion? Dilkes: I'd like to clarify something before you start. There's an error in the comment, it says if this motion passes Council may consider first consideration of the ordinance, it should say if this motion fails. All were doing is voting again on the motion to defer. So if you vote, you vote yes if you want to defer and you vote no, if you don't want to defer. It's a motion to defer, we're doing it again. So if this fails, we will move on. Lehman: So yes means no and no means yes as in First Avenue. (all talking) Vanderhoef: Now you're confusing me. Dilkes: If you want to defer, vote yes. Lehman: If you wish to consider it, you have to vote no. If we vote yes on Item 2, we adjourn. Dilkes: Correct. Lehman: Is there discussion? Vanderhoefi I would just like to make a comment from my perspective and that is that I still will vote yes to defer and I will look at the raising of the road so that the construction can continue as planned would go forward. Lebanan: Any other discussion? Kanner: I didn't quite follow that. What's the sequence of events that you're talking about Dee? Vanderhoefi It would take a second proposal to do this. But I want to defer, I want to continue to defer until such time as the study is completed. But in the mean time I would look favorably on the request that the University has This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 29, 2002. #2 Page 2 made to raise the level of Grand Avenue Court to meet their present building specifications for the Athletic Learning Center. Kanner: So this would be at a meeting down the road. There would be a proposal to raise the grade. Vanderhoef: Well it could be on this next agenda on Tuesday because it would go with Thursdays packet in our agenda for Tuesday. And from my understanding, I had asked for some information and I just received it back today. What our engineers say is that the changing of the grade of Grand Avenue Court at that point would not be significant in use of Grand Avenue Court after the construction (can't hear) gets out of there. I think that's a very positive thing to work with the University on this and still preserve our options for all road plans. Kanner: That seems like a reasonable compromise and I think that the situation should remain the same in that let things play out in the next five and half months now to see where the study takes us and the involvement of the neighborhood, and let all the parties have time to take that information in and let it percolate a bit and then reconsider it in five and half months. Lehman: Eleanor, now just to reiterate. A no vote to reconsider means that we proceed with the agenda. Dilkes: It's a no to deferral. Lehman: A no means that we would not defer it. So a no means that we would then consider the vacation, a yes means we would continue with the six month .... Dilkes: Correct. Lehman: .... delay. Roll Call. Motion defeated 4/3, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, and Kanner voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 29, 2002. #3 Page 3 ITEM 3 CONSIDER ORDINANCE VACATING THE TWENTY-THREE FOOT WIDE GRAND AVENUE COURT RIGHT-OF-WAY, COMMENCING FROM THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MELROSE AVENUE AND EXTENDING NORTHWARD FOR A DISTANCE OF TWO HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE FEET. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) O'Donnell: Moved. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Wilburn: In order to stay consistent with my message that I'd like to see the results of some study and no conditions have changed, other than a change of vote, I'm going to vote no on first and second consideration. If some study should happen to come back before third consideration, I may reconsider this, but in order to stay consistent with that message that I need to see some change of condition or results of some study, I'm going to be voting no. Champion: Eleanor this still carries the letter, the contract about the Cannon-Gay house? Dilkes: What we'll be doing, if you do pass first consideration of the vacation we will move to number four which is setting a public hearing on the disposition and it does include the provision on the Cannon-Gay house. O'Donnell: Okay. Vanderhoef: Does this still hold the University to doing the joint study with us? Champion: Yes. Lehman: It says it right in the comment. Dilkes: The disposition of the right-of-way does not. ! don't know how to make that....it's not. ~..I think you have to have an understanding with the University about the traffic study, but we're not actually going to place a restrictive covenant on the property that requires a traffic study. Champion: We've already agreed to do it. Dilkes: That's not included in here anyway. O'Donnell: But we do have a letter from the University ..... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 29, 2002. #3 Page 4 Vanderhoef: I was just asking if it was included. Dilkes: No. O'Donnell: We have a letter from the University, they are going to participate in the traffic study and I'm going to support this. Lehman: Is there any other discussion? I feel kind of badly in the way this has come about because I think that the University in good faith worked with our staff, we worked with their staff, this passed by a 6/1 vote in the Planning and Zoning Commission. It received the approval of our own staff. Certainly it could have been handled perhaps a little bit better. I think there's a certain level of trust involved here, we're talking about the largest industry in the State of Iowa, who I think has just as much an interest in moving cars efficiently through their campus as we have of seeing folks move east to the west side of town. So I'm going to support it. I wish it had come about six months ago prior to the commencing of the construction, but I will support it. Roll call. Motion can'ies 4/3, Vanderhoef, Wilbum, and Kanner voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 29, 2002. #4 Page 5 ITEM 4 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO CONVEY THE TWENTY-THREE FOOT WIDE GRAND AVENUE COURT RIGHT-OF-WAY, COMMENCING FROM THE NORTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF MELROSE AVENUE AND EXTENDING NORTHWARD FOR A DISTANCE OF 295 FEET, TO THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID CONVEYANCE FOR NOVEMBER 5, 2002. O'Donnnell: So moved. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion. Wilbum: This is the setting of a public hearing, correct? Lehman: Right. Val~derhoef: Well, here again, I don't want to convey anything until such time as the study is completed so I'll be voting no. Lehman: Roll call. Wilbum: Well, this is actually setting a public hearing I'll go ahead and do that. Lehman: Motion carries, 5/2, Vanderhoef and Katmer voting in the negative. (Jean Walker approached the podium to speak. Mic did not work at the podium) Lehman: Now I don't know... Walker: Lelunan: We just voted on the two. Go ahead. Go ahead. Dilkes: There is a public heating set for the conveyance on Tuesday. Lehman: Setting the public hearing. If you're talking about conveying the property that heating will be next Tuesday, and that's the time for input on the conveyance of the land. Walker: O'Donnell: Already voted on it. Lehman: But we'll have the public hearing. We will not vote to convey that. That will come two weeks after that so it's at least three weeks before a vote to convey. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 29, 2002. #4 Page 6 Dilkes: No, three weeks? Lehman: Is that not correct? Dilkes: It's setting the public hearing for November 5. Lehman: Right. Vanderhoef: For Tuesday. Dilkes: For Tuesday. Atkins: Next week. Lehman: But we wouldn't vote for the conveyance until the meeting following the public hearing. Is that correct? Dilkes: It had been my understanding that Council's, and I was not here at the last meeting so perhaps I am mistaken, but it had been my understanding that Council wanted to do the second reading of the vacation on Monday and the third reading of the vacation on Tuesday. And therefore we would hold the public hearing and vote to convey on Tuesday. Lehman: Go ahead. Walker: (Reads statement) Lehman: Thank you Jean. Kanner: Thanks Jean. Karr: Jean, do you have those remarks in writing? We have had some technical (problems) Walker: ...rough... can submit later today. Karr: That would be great, thank you. Lehman: Do you need a motion to accept correspondence? Karr: Well, since she does not have it, no. (Jean Walker submitted comments, and additional remarks which were accepted at the November 5 Council meeting.) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 29, 2002.