Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-03 Transcription#2 ITEM 2 PROCLAMATION. a) Pride Month -June 2008 Page 1 Bailey: Before we proceed with this evening's meeting, I wanted to take a moment and pause to express on behalf of Council, and the entire community, our heartfelt sympathies to the family of the two-and-a-half- year-old girl who died, um, in this morning's tragic small-engine plane crash in west Iowa City. I'd also like to commend our first responders and other citizens who responded at the scene. Um, our hearts and our thoughts go out to the family and everyone who was affected by this homble accident. Okay. Item 2 is Proclamations. (reads proclamation) Karr: Here to accept the Proclamation is Matt Dolter, Member of the Iowa City Pride Committee. (applause) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #3 Page 2 ITEM 3 SPECIAL PRESENTATION. a) Iowa Department of Transportation -Official Saints Community Karr: Here to make the presentation is Cathy Coulter, District 6 Planner for IDT. Coulter: Mayor and Council, on behalf of the Iowa and Missouri Departments of Transportation, it is our pleasure and honor to name Iowa City an official Saints Community. Iowa City is one of only 39 Iowa communities selected to receive this special designation in recognition of completion of the four-lane Avenue of the Saints highway corridor from St. Paul, Minnesota to St. Louis, Missouri. We hope that you enjoy your community recognition sign, which is an expression of our appreciation to all the communities along the corridor that endured the growing pains of a new roadway and exhibited tremendous patience during the extended project construction period. Also like to remind you of a dedication ceremony to be held Friday, June 27`h, uh, in Missouri near Running Fox Elementary School. Hope you can join us at that celebration. May this designation bring the great people and businesses of Iowa City added vitality, prosperity, and recognition. Bailey: Thank you, Cathy. Oh, wow! You brought us a sign! Champion: That's neat! As a frequent driver to Missouri, I love that road. Bailey: As a frequent driver to Burlington, I love that road. Thank you very much! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #4 ITEM 4 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. Champion: So moved. Wright: Second. Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by Wright. Discussion? Page 3 Hayek: I'm going to abstain from this vote. I represent, uh, one of the applicants for a sidewalk cafe, and there's not a ]egal conflict of interest, but I don't feel like... Champion: ...withdraw that one. Hayek: No, I'm just going to abstain, and you guys can vote. I have a feeling the Consent Calendar will pass. Bailey: Okay. All right. Roll call. Item carries 6-0; Hayek abstaining due to conflict of interest. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #5 Page 4 ITEM 5 COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NO ON THE AGENDA). Bailey: This is a time for members of the community to comment on items that are not on tonight's agenda. If you would like to make a comment, please approach the podium, state your name for the record, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Lensing: And you sign in, please? Bailey: Yes, please sign in. Lensing: I'm Michael Lensing, and I'm here as a new Member of the Senior Center Commission, and we welcome everybody to come to the Senior Center that's 50 or above. We're trying to get a lot of young people over there, so, uh, everybody's welcome, but I, um, told the group that I would come and report what's going on with the Center Commission, and just some things. We had a Senior Prom this year of which there were 120 there this month, and um, that was excellent. There's a lot of infrastructure work going on, um, as probably a lot of you know, there's, um, whole new heating and air conditioning system going in, which I think is like $700,000. It's a big project. And also the Senior system's...or Senior Center's roof system was overwhelmed by rain on the weekend of May 10`h, so, um, that's something that we'll be looking at, um, probably next year and trying to keep that going. Um, other things coming up is this weekend is Art Fest, as all of you know, and there is what's called the Boomer Bash, which everybody wanted everybody to, uh, invite you to on June 5`h, and it's the official kickoff to, uh, the Art Fest, and it's going to be a street dance in front of the Senior Center with the Beeker Brothers. Um, we have two student interns that are now at the Senior Center, and also on KXIC, home and garden show every Friday morning, um, that's being brought to you from the Senior Center. Um, so I think that pretty much does it, just, um, come to the Boomer Bash. Bailey: Thanks for the update, Michael. Other members of the audience who would like to comment...on items that aren't on tonight's agenda? Vanderwerff: Hi, my name is Kelly Vanderwerff, and I'm the Prevention Supervisor for MECCA services, and with me are a couple of students from the student group at City High called Teens Against Alcohol and Drugs, um, and we just want to say a few words to you. Recently, on March 315`, we had a community conversation on underage drinking that was held at the Iowa City Public Library, and you all weren't able to attend because unfortunately we scheduled it on a Council meeting night, so we, um, appreciate the opportunity to come and share some of that information with you. The girls have some information that we, uh, handed out that evening that we'd like to share with you, if they could pass that on. Um, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #5 Page 5 as long...also included in that is, uh, a summary report of the evening that inc]udes, um, how many attended, who attended, from what sectors of the community, what we discussed, and sort of, um, some of the responses of people who were there. Um, the 1,700 town hall meetings, such as ours, were held across the nation this spring in response to the Surgeon General's call to action to prevent and reduce underage drinking, which I have a copy of here and you can also see online. The goal of town hall meetings was to raise awareness about the risks of underage drinking, many of which are misunderstood or altogether unknown by many; to understand that it is the collective responsibility of all members of the community, from all sectors, to prevent and reduce underage drinking; and to identify effective environmental strategies that communities can use to prevent it. Science and statistics are clear that underage drinking causes a great deal of harm, to both the young people who are doing the drinking, as well as to the communities in which they live. And it is because of this that the Surgeon General has prioritized underage drinking as a leading public health problem. Hopefully we will get the opportunity to speak with you in more detail about the topic of underage drinking, and discuss with you recommendations the Surgeon General has for specific actions that policy makers can take to prevent and reduce underage drinking. Thank you for your time. And the girls would like to say a few things. Rodriguez: Hi, my name's Destiny Rodriguez, and I'm a junior at City High. Um, I am the Vice President of TAD, and um, I just wanted to say in our society today, we have so much information about alcohol, such as the effects, symptoms, and the causes. When we think about alcohol, the first thing that pops in my head is teens, males and females my age or younger, or even older, experience with drinking and driving or even binge drinking. We don't hear or see much of it in this small town, but I guarantee it happens often than what you think. I know kids my age, or even o]der or younger, can get alcohol easy by relatives, parent's house, or even friends. In this group, I want to try to focus educating our community, especially teens and parents, about alcohol. It's important for the parent to know where and when their child is going to be at all times, making sure they're in a safe environment. Also it's important for teens to know the consequences of underage drinking and the health issue if they ever get addicted or intoxicated to alcohol. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you, Destiny. Reyes: My name is Stephanie Reyes and I'm also a student at City High, and to be straightforward, this is very vital to know, and to always remind ourself, is that we can die from alcohol. It's important for teenagers that are not yet developed as grown adults to know this kind of information, plus if a teen was to get addicted to alcohol, all their money's being wasted away, instead of using it wisely on the things that they actually This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #5 Page 6 need, such as school supplies, clothes, and gas to take them from home to work or to school, etc. This is why we need more support in learning more about underage drinking. Bailey: Thank you, Stephanie. Rodriguez: I just have one more thing to say. Um, we would like the opportunity to speak with you more about, um, about our new ideas and concerns about underage drinking. Please consider putting us in your agenda for a future work session. Thank you. Bailey: And if we do that, should we contact Kelly? Rodriguez: Yes. Bailey: Okay, thank you. Wilburn: Also let, uh, the two of you know that we do have an opening on our Youth Advisory Commission and we will have future openings, and we certainly could use your help reaching out to City High students who might be interested in serving on one of our boards or commissions. Bailey: Nice commercial. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Correia: So moved. Champion: So moved. Bailey: All those in favor say aye. Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. Other, um, members who would like to speak to public, or community comment? Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 7 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. b) TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 6, EAST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD, AND WEST OF COMMERCE DRIVE FROM INDUSTRIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open. We'll start with Planning Director Davidson. Davidson: Good evening Madame Mayor, Members of Council, I am Jeff Davidson, the Planning Director for the City. Uh, Item b is a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment that is related to your following item on the agenda, uh, we believe it's appropriate for you to consider this item first, and then the item, uh, which follows, which is a rezoning item. Uh, in tenns of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, uh, when we look at Comp Plan amendments, the Comp Plan of course if the broad vision for the community, so, uh, when we are considering an amendment, we...we like to look at what circumstances may have changed since the original Comprehensive Plan designation. In the particular case of this item this evening, uh, is additional retail or commercial, uh, land needed in this part of town, and if so, is this the best location for it. Uh, the proposed amendment you see here to the Comp Plan map adds this area of general commercial to what has previously been, as you can see from all the purples, a primarily industrial designation for this area. The, uh, the property that is being considered for rezoning in your following item is zoned CI-1, so it is a commercial designation, but it is the intensive commercial zone, which is considered consistent with more industrial type uses, which is obviously the chazacter of this area. Um, in terms of this specific proposal, uh, and examining the factors that I outlined earlier, um, the key thing probably to consider is the establishment of the Fareway grocery store in this area. It is there. It sort of cast the die in terms of this being a little more commercial and a little more retail/commercial, compared to what our original vision, uh, was for the area. iJh, a couple of other factors that I think aze important for your decision is this is a growing area of town. The growth area boundary extends, uh, quite a bit further to the east and north, what is currently Ag property, uh, we expect to consider annexation in the short-term future for that area, and it will not be entirely industrial. It'll eventually transition from industrial into more residential, uh, and perhaps some pazkland uses and that sort of thing, uh, further north. Uh, I think most of you are awaze that, uh, McCollister Boulevard will be extended across south Iowa City, and eventually intersect with Scott Boulevard. Uh, this will become a much more, uh, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 8 intensive, uh, node in terms of traffic volume and therefore we feel could be appropriate for more retaiUcommercial type use, the CC-2 zone, which is the more retail type use that...that requires higher visibility and a higher traffic count. Uh, the other thing we want to discourage is strip commercial by providing an intersection, a major intersection node. We feel that that may forestall more of a strip commercial type feel, uh, in this area that could be something that would be, uh, requested. Um, the one concern we have is that this is an industrial area, and...and we feel that it's probably fully enough developed now in terms of the Scott Six Industrial Park that anybody considering purchasing one of the commercial lots, either the existing commercial designation or if you consider the rezoning, if you approve the rezoning that's the following item, people should be aware that this is an industrial area. It's fully enough built out...at the time of the Fareway grocery store, it really wasn't fully enough built out, but we feel like it is now. So, the Planning and Zoning Commission does, uh, recommend approval of this item. Any questions forme? Bailey: Questions? Correia: Do you have the pointer? So this area, all the way down here, is what is proposed? Davidson: Yes, the blue area here is the proposed change, uh, to general commercial. Correia: Okay, and that in there is where Fareway is? Davidson: Yes. Fareway's located about...right there. Correia: Okay. Bailey: Are we going to get general commercial creep north, if we, I mean, I know Fareway's, well, that was before I was on Council, um, but we just have such limited sort of intensive industrial land, and my concern, I guess, is developing community commercial all the way down, or more general commercial, all the way...or north. Davidson: Well, as I mentioned, the guidance in the Comprehensive Plan does discourage strip commercial. Bailey: Right. Davidson: So, commercial creep in terms of a corridor further north would be something that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The development of an intersection would be more consistent with a...any other questions forme? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Couucil Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 9 Bailey: And then, as we develop this out, there'll be requirements to have pedestrian and bicycle access within this community-commercial area. Do we have good access, um, out there in that way? Davidson: Um, the interior of the industrial subdivision did have sidewalks waived at the time it was platted. Uh, I personally was not in favor of that at the time, but that was approved. Certainly along Scott Boulevard, uh, sidewalks would be required and would be installed as development occurs along the major arterials. We did make sure there was a sidewalk connection to the Fareway when that was established. Bailey: So what is waived? With this? Davidson: The interior sidewalks to the interior of the industrial subdivision. Bailey: The industrial, but not to this area that... Davidson: No, no, not to this azea, and in fact, in fact the next item specifically addresses sidewalk, uh, connections in this area. Bailey: Okay. Correia: But we don't have sidewalks all the way down Highway 6 to... Davidson: Not currently, no, but we do plan on that in the future. The...the project that we did recently between Gilbert Street and approximately Sycamore...not quite Sycamore Street, I guess it was closer to Taylor Drive, uh, along Highway 6, we would proposed continuing that clear out to this intersection. As properties developed along Scott Boulevard, sidewalks would be installed where they're not located currently. Correia: Right. So we have sidewalks on Scott, all the way to...where does the sidewalk stop before... Davidson: I don't recall specifically, but I think on either one side or the other they at least extend down this far. I think there's actually one on the west side that goes clear down to Scott Boulevard, I believe. (several talking) To Highway 6, yeah, I'm sorry. On the... Wilburn: The only question I have is the, uh, the ACT property. Davidson: Yeah, it might terminate...it might terminate at the street, where's my pointer? It might terminate right there, uh, but from that point further north I think we have pretty good sidewalk continuity. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 10 Wilburn: I just biked on it Sunday, and it shows you how bad my short-term memory is. Davidson: Yeah, the west side of the street has a wide sidewalk, actually, all the way up to Dodge Street. Any other questions? Correia: And the bus doesn't go all the way out there, or does it? Davidson: Bus does go...at least a partial route does go to the industrial park, that we started recently. Correia: So to the industrial park, but does it go all the way down to this commercial area. Bailey: Fareway, for example. Davidson: Uh, it goes, yes, it goes through that vicinity. Bailey: Okay, other questions? Davidson: Thank you. Bailey: Others wishing to comment during public hearing? Okay. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is closed. 2. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION O'Donnell: Move the resolution. Champion: Second. Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Further discussion on Council? Hayek: I think this makes sense. I mean, we've got a crossing of several major streets and we've got development plans...there's development plans in the area, actually make a nice buffer between those and the more industrial areas. In any event, it's a defacto commercial azea, uh, as we speak tonight. Wright: As Jeff said, the die was cast (mumbled) Bailey: Other discussion? Okay, roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 11 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. c) CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 10.08 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 6, EAST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD, AND WEST OF COMMERCE DRIVE FROM INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI- 1) ZONE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) ZONE. (REZ08-00003) 1. PUBLIC HEARING Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open Davidson: Uh, this is the rezoning then, uh, that's been requested from CI-1 to CC-2 for lots 16 through 24 of Scott Six Industrial Park. Uh, just a little very brief history. Uh, Scott Six Industrial Park was a joint venture between a private entity and the City. The City's role, we waived a lot of the fees that normally would have been part of the development of the subdivision, in order to get an industrial subdivision, uh, established in this area. Uh, basically the continuation of what has proceeded in an eastward direction in this area. Um, there was the issue with the Fareway grocery store, the CI-1 zone was amended to allow a grocery store, by special exception, which was subsequently approved by the Board of Adjustment. In 2005 the new Zoning Code, uh, specifically excluded retail uses, uh, so that the Fareway is now a, um, legal, non-conforming use. Uh, approval of this action would make them a legal use again within the CC-2 zone. Uh, I won't belabor the distinction between the two zones. I think you're fairly well up to speed with that. The clear differences that...that the approving this rezoning to do would allow, uh, the more retail type uses, specifically motels, restaurants, general and medical offices are not currently allowed, would be allowed if the, uh, rezoning is approved, and the property owner has indicated that, uh, those are the types of uses they're interested in marketing the property to. Not motels, but the other ones. Um, the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommends approval of this, subject to the original conditions that were part of the Conditional Zoning Agreement for this property. So, these are not new conditions, but they will be the property owner's, the Strebs who have requested the rezoning, along with Fareway property and the convenience store property will be, we are recommending be subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement that's primarily has to do with entryway beautification things like, uh, having landscaping beds, uh, limiting the number offree-standing signs, doing some screening, uh, requiring a finished fapade to the side of the building that faces Scott Boulevard, and specifically, since it's come up, sidewalks must be provided along all commercially zoned lots within the development. Any questions? Bailey: Questions for Jeff? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 12 Davidson: Thank you. Dilkes: Jeff, do we have the Conditional...signed Conditional Zoning Agreement? Davidson: ...that we do. Do you know Karen? (unable to hear response) We do not have a fully executed agreement at this time. Dilkes: We'll have to continue the public hearing. Correia: Move to continue the public hearing. Bailey: Moved by Correia, seconded by O'Donnell to continue the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed same sign. Karr: We'll continue it to the 17t°. Bailey: The 17`h, um, and then we'll defer first consideration. Do I have a motion for that? 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Champion: So moved. Hayek: Second. Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by Hayek to defer first consideration to June 17"'. Roll call. Karr: It's a motion. Bailey: Oh! All those in favor say aye. Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 13 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. d) REZONING APPROXIMATELY 9.48 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF OLIVE COURT AND LEAMER COURT AND EAST OF MARIETTA AVENUE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) ZONE TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (OPD-8). (REZ08- 0001) 1. PUBLIC HEARING Bailey: This is a public hearing. (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open, and we'll start with a report from our Planning Department. Howard: Uh, this is a planned development rezoning. The applicant is Jeff Hendrickson. Bailey: Karen, will you introduce yourself. Howard: I'm sorry, I'm Karen Howard. Bailey: Thank you. Howard: Associate Planner with the City. Bailey: Thank you. Howard: Uh, like I said, this is an application by Jeff Hendrickson, a request for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family zone, RS-8, to Planned Development Overlay, OPD-8. Um, it's for nine detached single-family homes and 22 attached single-family homes. With planned developments there's a number of different reasons that people request a planned development. In this case, there's a number of reasons, um, that the planned development rezoning was requested. As you can see from this map, um, this is the existing property that's hatched in here. It's an infill parcel; it's completely surrounded with developed properties. That's one good reason to apply for a planned development. Those properties that are infill properties are often difficult to develop, because of existing street patterns, having to fit into the neighborhood, um, another reason, uh, is the property has sensitive features on it. Uh, steep slopes, it has a small parcel that's a wetland on it, and also the developer would like to develop this as a condominium development, um, meaning he doesn't want to divide it into single lots. He wants to have a joint development where they own the open space in common. This are a few photos from the property. As you can see here, this is the end of Marietta Avenue, um, the property butts up against University Heights, and all the streets that access the property are University Heights' streets. Uh, this is the end of Marietta Avenue. You This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 14 can see from the property it's very level at this point. This is the ravine that cuts through the center of the property from east to west. Um, it's been, um, modified over time. Uh, the property has been used, um, for parking cars specifically during the Hawkeye football games. There were some modifications to these slopes in this ravine to make it easier to, uh, drive cars across the ravine. There's some dams that were built, uh, I believe the bottom of it was tiled to help the drainage. So there's a number of modifications that happened over time. Here's another view of that ravine. This is the end of Leamer Court, another street coming from University Heights. And this is the end of Olive Court. This is actually a portion that's a private drive, and there are some existing houses on the property that will...are planned to betaken down to make room for this development. For a planned development, uh, the applicant has not requested an upzoning of this property. In other words, the density will remain the same as underlying RS-8 zone. The maximum density allowed in the RS-8 zone is eight units per acre. Atypical subdivision, because of streets taking up space in a subdivision, what we typically see with an RS- 8 development is about 5.2 dwellings per acre. The proposed development here on this site is 3.8 units per acre, as a comparison to surrounding, existing, and developed neighborhoods; the development along Olive and Learner Court is approximately 4.9 units per acre. Just to give you some context. With regard to the land uses and site layout of the proposed development, you can see here, um, what they're planning to do is extend Marietta Avenue into a cul-de-sac, and build detach, or attached homes along that street, um, along this, the south side of the ravine, and along the north side of the ravine have Olive Court and Learner Court connected with a loop, as a loop street. Uh, they're proposing single- family detached homes, um, close to the neighborhood that's existing along Leamer and Olive, transitioning to the larger buildings that are attached, uh, two-unit buildings. The RS-8 zone allows a mix of single- family and duplex units, the underlying zone. The, on a typical RS-8 subdivision, you would have single-family homes on the interior of the blocks with duplexes on the corners, allowed on the corners. The constraints with this particular property is that, you know, it's completely surrounded by developed areas so the street pattern is difficult to connect across that ravine, and it's...it's, so it's difficult to have that typical block pattern that would allow those corner lots as duplexes. One of the things the planned development does is allows the flexibility to mix uses and adjust the zoning standards so that development can fit a particular site, particularly in...an infill parcel. So the proposal is to transition from those detached homes to the larger attached homes on the interior of the lot. Uh, the attaching the homes allows for more open space between the buildings. There's no net loss of...of open space that would be required with the setbacks, and I'll go in to that in just a moment. Um, the street layout, um, that they're proposing maximizes the number of units that have use of that shared open space, which is the ravine. Uh, planned developments also This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 15 talk about requiring, uh, compatibility with surrounding, existing homes. The homes in this proposal are larger than most of the homes in the surround neighborhood, uh, the detached homes proposed aze approximately 4,300 square feet total, with a building footprint of 2,300 square feet. The attached homes, um, are larger, about twice that size, each individual unit is about the size of the detached units. But, uh, what the developer has done is designed those homes so the height and the scale as viewed from the street are similar to existing homes in the area. They're one story as viewed from the street, with walkout basements that take advantage of the slope on the, in the ravine. They have also hired an architect to design the house styles to mimic house styles in the neighborhood, uh, they've come up with a number of different elevations, uh, the garages are a bit larger than most of the existing homes in the area. There are a number of homes that have street facing garages, two-car garages similar to this, um, but these are a bit larger than most of the homes, because the homes aze larger, um, but they have done a number of azchitectural techniques to de-emphasize those features of the home, and staff and the Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, have, uh, suggested that they vazy those designs and colors along the street to prevent monotony. These are a few of those building elevations, and I believe the applicant may have more to add on this point, um, but it gives you some idea of what they're proposing. These are the attached homes. They have requested a number of adjustments to the underlying zoning, which is allowed with the planned development. Um, they want to be able to cluster the homes away from the ravine. The minimal lot width and lot frontage on several of the lots, the ones that are circled here, they're requesting some changes to the underlying zoning. They're requesting to, uh, reduce the minimum lot frontage and lot width. These are imaginary lot lines on this...to illustrate whether they've met the underlying zoning requirements. They're not planning to subdivide these into individual lots, so these are...aze basically imaginary lines to see if they've met the underlying zoning. So on these lots, um, they're requesting a reduction in the lot frontage, which is the distance along the street here. Uh, the...one of the reasons we have lot frontage requirements is so that buildings are visible and also accessible to emergency services, public services, uh, they went through a number of iterations here, uh, to satisfy the Fire Department and Public Works Department to make sure that, um, they felt that these met those criteria, the intent of the Code, and the Planning and Zoning Commission also felt that the intent of the Code was met. With regazd to open space, 72% of this property will remain as open space, and that includes front yards, side yards, and of course, the open ravine. They're planning a pedestrian trail to cross the ravine in this location to correspond with the dam that's going to be built. This will be a private trail, and shazed open space with the condominium units. They're proposing to set the units back the same distance as the other houses in the neighborhood. The setback in Iowa City for front yazd setbacks is I S feet. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 16 The homes along Learner and Olive are set back about 25 feet. They wanted to make those compatible with the neighborhood, so they're proposing to set them back Further, in line with those houses. With regard to the side setbacks, there is some concern about how this interfaces with the existing homes. Uh, required side setbacks, uh, in Iowa City are five feet side yard. IJh, they're proposing along this edge to set the buildings back ten feet, to give a little extra room here, and on this property right here, uh, they're proposing to set it back 30, approximately 33 feet, to allow for...to save a few mature trees, and to bring some additional buffer. There's some concern expressed at the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, and much discussion by the Planning and Zoning Commission Members about traffic circulation. As you can here...as you can see here, this is the existing street pattern in the neighborhood. Here's Learner Court, Olive Court, and here's Marietta Avenue coming into this property. I don't know if that's really...I guess this comes across fairly clearly on the screen, um, you can see this overlay with the street pattern here, um, Marietta would extend approximately the same distance as Tower Court, similar to that. Um, the loop street coming around here. There was some concern that there...that the loop street would be acut-through. And, uh, there's a traffic signal in this location here, Melrose Avenue is an arterial street. Uh, staff looked at this, the Traffic Engineering staff looked at this, and felt that there wouldn't be likely a lot ofcut-through traffic, there wouldn't be a big reason for people to go all the way around a loop to basically come back to the same location that they were before, and in congested periods of time, uh, along Melrose Avenue, um, while some people might say that you want to avoid a traffic signal, a lot of times it's a lot easier to wait for a traffic signal to get a green light than it is to sit an undetermined amount of time at a stop sign. So, staff looked at that and did not believe that that would be a problem, and the Planning and Zoning Commission conferred. IJh, there was a number of reasons that we felt that the loop street was a benefit over having numerous cul-de-sacs in this location. Gives better access for emergency vehicles, provides an alternative route in the event one street access is blocked, uh, provides more efficient delivery of services and snow removal, better pedestrian access, and the homeowners in this development would have better access and views from the open space. With regard to the volume of traffic here, um, of course any new development would add some traffic to an existing street. Typically on our local streets, traffic calming is not typically considered until traffic volume reaches about 500 vehicle trips per day. The estimates here for these streets existing along Marietta is 49 vehicles per day. As you can see here, what the traffic would increase. Um, none of these streets would likely reach that...that, uh, threshold value of 500 vehicle trips per day. Another note there is that about seven of the homes along Olive Court have access to a rear alley, which also, um, so these volumes might be a bit high. That alley has direct access to Melrose Avenue. There's a number of factors, uh, lot of concern in the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 17 neighborhood about traffic speeds, if they extend it into a loop, and there's a number of factors that, uh, we felt that would help to slow the traffic. The streets are fairly narrow here, um, and there's tight curves on that loop, and street trees along always help to reduce, um, traffic, as well. ilh, they have requested, uh, an increase to the cul-de-sac length. Right now Iowa City has a maximum length of 900 feet. This is a request of a 1,000- foot cul-de-sac. As you can see from the, um, diagram here, it would be similar to the length of Tower Court, an existing street in Iowa City. Uh, Iowa City discourages use of cul-de-sacs, um, because they reduce connectivity and create inefficiencies for public services, and make walking and biking more difficult, um, but this street pattern is already established, um, this allows some clustering of the units away from the ravine and the sensitive features, and this will only be asingle-loaded street, meaning there won't be homes on both sides. Um, in comparison, Tower Court has 27 homes and this single-loaded street would only have 18. So for all those reasons, staff and the Commission felt that this was a reasonable request. This property also requires sensitive, a level two sensitive area's review because of the steep slopes, and a wetland's on the property. Uh, we regulate steep, critical and protected slopes, uh, to promote safety, and to prevent erosion and failure of slopes. Uh, here is a sensitive areas diagram of this property. The hashed marks you can see are the steep and critical slopes on the property. The homes you can see clustered along that ravine and are encroaching into some of those slopes, so that is the request for the review. Um, they're proposing to disturb about 60% of the steep slopes, 42% of the critical slopes, and 30...34% of the protected slopes. Now protected slopes are the steepest slopes, um, encroachment is not allowed typically allowed unless these slopes were previously altered. In this case there's quite a bit of evidence that they were previously, uh, graded and altered. Um, even so, even if they're altered, they're not allowed to be disturbed unless there's some assurance that they can be developed in a manner that keeps those slopes stable. So the City required them to do, to hire a consultant to analyze the soils and make sure they were stable enough for this proposed development. Um, the applicant did that and, um, we received that soils' report. I believe it's in your packet. The City is...also requires, um, erosion control measures on these steep slopes and it has examined those to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. We will require building permits for all retaining walls, a tree protection plan at the time of final, and, uh, there will be some grading allowed at the east end of the ravine for essential utilities. There is one small portion of wetlands, in the southeast comer of the property. It's less than one acre. They're requested a reduction in the buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet, uh, they've done a wetlands' analysis to indicate that all the criteria are met for a buffer reduction, um, staff and the Commission concur, and believe that was a reasonable request. Uh, to summarize, the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission find that the proposed development meets the criteria for an RS-8 planned This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 18 development; meets the density requirements; seems to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods with regard to density; and the style of the homes will not overburden existing streets and utilities; and it will not adversely affect views and light and air, property values, um, any more than would a conventional subdivision. Uh, staff and the Commission recognize that this has been enjoyed as public open space or private open space for many years, um, so it will be different than what is there now, but as far as comparing it to a conventional subdivision, the staff and the Commission felt that it complied with the standards. Uh, they presented convincing evidence -the encroachment into the regulated slopes will not create a hazard and will not undermine the stability of the slopes; and the open space and trees preserved...that are being preserved within the ravine and the drainage, uh, is being proposed to be improved. I wanted to mention that because that will probably come up in the testimony. There is an existing problem with drainage at the bottom of the ravine, on the western side. There's some storm water outlets from University Heights that is creating some pooling. There's, uh, a small dam that was built by the Neuzils that's blocking that drainage, and the applicant is proposing to connect the storm water system through a pipe at the bottom of the ravine to improve that drainage situation. So, any questions for staff? Bailey: Questions for Karen? Hayek: Have we...um, let me back up. Whether you go the OPD route or develop under the existing RS-8 route, the same ecological review and requirements would be...would be triggered. Is that right? Meaning that if the applicant were...if the sensitive areas ordinance and you know the protections that have been discussed in regard to water, slope, preservation of trees -that sort of thing -would those be triggered, uh, under a...under a RS-8 approach? As it is currently zoned. Howard: If they're planning to build and encroach into the sensitive features, then a sensitive areas review is required. Um, sometimes those reviews are administrative, if they're not encroaching a great deal. Um, there's usually thresholds. If they meet that threshold, then it kicks it into, um, a rezoning process, which is the planned development process. So because on this particular property they exceeded that threshold of encroachment, on both asking for the buffer reduction for the wetland and encroaching into those protected...altered protected slopes, that in itself would trigger the planned development rezoning. So even though...even if they didn't request any, if they subdivided into a traditional, uh, single-family development, if they were encroaching into those slopes it would require a planned development. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 19 Hayek: So you're saying that as opposed to electing to ask the City for OPD processing, uh, approaching this from a simple RS-8 perspective would, in the even their plans encroached into those areas, trigger that anyway? Howard: Yes. Bailey: Other questions for Karen? Wright: Given the location of this, uh, on-street parking is likely to be on people's minds. What are the provisions for that? It's not a tembly wide street. Howard: I believe in University Heights, on-street parking is not allowed. Um, the City ordinance along these streets in Iowa City, we typically don't take parking off the street unless it's requested by a, by the people that live on the street. So if that was the case, then we would look at and make sure...take it off if it was something...I know that there's concern about commuter parking in this area, being so close to the University Hospitals and Law School. Bailey: Other questions? Hayek: Sort of a follow-up to my first question -has, we've seen, uh, a possible layout of this development under OPD. Um, have we mapped out what this might look like under RS-8...what kind of development, what kinds of layouts we might see under simply RS-8? Howard: We...we don't design the subdivision, so we don't, um, map them out. We're asked to analyze, um, what's proposed, and we did ask them to do a zoning sort of exercise to make sure they were meeting the requirements of the underlying zone. I think, um, you could speculate that by...by separating the detached homes, um, changing it from a 20-foot side yard, moving, you know, ten feet of that between the units, which would meet, you know, our typical pattern ofsingle-family detached with ten foot side yards, um, that you can see that this would fit and could be divided into individual lots as single-family, uh, and be able to fit probably the same number of units, but there's probably a number of street patterns somebody could propose, different patterns. I mean, there would be endless possibilities, I'm sure, here. Bailey: Other questions for Karen? Wilburn: Well, with being...within a big lot to cluster, um, is going to give you the open, the openness I would presume, as opposed to...the feel maybe a little bit more open than under the traditional development. (several talking) That's why you go for the... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 20 Hayek: Then that open space is the same. It's whether you have more open space and fewer areas, or less open space and more areas. Is that...that has to do with the setbacks, uh, the side yard setbacks for the homes. Correia: It looks like there's more shared open space (mumbled). Howard: On this particular property there's more shared open space probably because of the ravine. Hayek: And when you're talking about open space, are you saying between homes, or in the ravine? (several talking) Bailey: And the private trail, um, that's public access, but the residents take care of it -that's what a private trail is, or is it just access for people in the area? Howard: Um, they would like it to be a private trail for people in the development. It's not intended to be a public...they're not, uh, putting a public access easement over it. Bailey: Okay. Other questions? Correia: Is the trail required to be accessible? Howard: Uh, because it is a private trail, it's not required to be, but we have requested them to try...there is quite a steep slope here, but they do have to do some grading in this area because they're putting a dam in here for the storm water management, the detention basin, so we've asked them to try to make it as close to the ADA requirements as possible. Correia: So that's in the...Conditional Zoning Agreement? That made it into our ordinance, our Conditional Zoning Agreement? Howard: Um, we're not proposing a Conditional Zoning Agreement. What would happen is all the condition...all the, uh, the lot layouts that are proposed here in the planned development would be recorded and they would have to be complied with. So there's some notes on the plat itself that... Correia: So that includes the making the trail accessible. Howard: Uh, we did not specifically say it had to be accessible. That's something you could discuss. Correia: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 21 Bailey: Okay, other questions for Karen? Okay, before we hear for the developer and the neighborhood, um, let's just disclose our ex parte communications regarding this rezoning. Any conversations outside of this meeting that you've had with the members of the public or other...I guess members of the public. That would cover it, wouldn't it? Or others, each other...yeah, or staff. Wright: I had a brief conversation with the, uh, Mayor of University Heights. Bailey: Okay. And the nature of the conversation, that's part of the...part of why we talk about this, so other people can speak to what you discussed. Wright: Uh, discussing the pros and cons, briefly pointing out to me that, uh, whereas people are used to the fact that this has been open space and the land is for sale, then barring somebody coming to the rescue so to speak that there were a number of people in University Heights who are not opposed to the development. Bailey: Okay. Thanks. Other disclosures? Hayek: I have, uh, I was contacted by Doug Moore who was in the azea, and he spoke to me and...and conveyed essentially some of the same concerns that I've seen in email correspondence. Uh, I placed a phone call to our Planning Department today, I had some questions about...exactly what we talked about tonight and I also spoke to our Legal Department briefly about RS-8 and what can be, uh, what's entailed in that zoning description. Bailey: Others? I also spoke to the Mayor of University Heights. The nature of our conversation was regarding, um, the developer and how University of Heights, University Heights, and she felt that working with this particular developer had been very, um, pleasant and that he does good work essentially to summarize that conversation. Okay. Um, next, I understand we're going to hear from the developer. And there's also a presentation from the neighborhood, as I understand, is that correct, Marian? Okay. Monson: My name is Kevin Monson. I am an architect in Iowa City, and I'm rep...um, representing Jeff Hendrickson, the developer for the project. And we do have some images that we'd like to show. Am I going the wrong way? (mumbling) Okay. While we are getting the presentation up...that's it, yeah. Bailey: I think that means technical difficulties. Monson: This is a very unique parcel, uh, for many reasons. Uh, it's unique because its only access of course is through University Heights, but it is an This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 22 Iowa City, uh, property. And so it's been correctly stated that this is an in- fill site, totally surrounded by residential properties. And, uh, existing City services are available to it, uh, without great cost to anyone. So truly, um, a good example of smart growth, infill, and um, I think a great addition to our community in many ways. Um, this has a lot of history behind it, as well. Um, our forefathers fought this parcel through a downzoning issue, uh, went all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court, and the property owners lost -Iowa City won, and it was downzoned. Uh, since that time, uh, it has also gone through some, of course, changes in our ordinances, which has further deteriorated the ability for development of this property. Uh, so it has a lot of history. Probably one of the most interesting issues is, uh, the abate that happened many years ago when our forefathers decided to deny the property access to Iowa City, and so the only access was, uh, destined to be through University Heights. And that was debated. Um, so with those kind of unique issues, it...it is, uh, for that reason probably, uh, still vacant, and uh, we would like to develop it in a very sensitive manner, uh, recognizing the unique characteristics of the site, and also, uh, the unique characteristics of University Heights itself. Um, we did have a neighborhood meeting, uh, in February before we made submittal to the Planning and Zoning group. We actually invited people within 300 feet of the site, uh, and interesting enough, 43% of those within 300 feet of the site are non-owner occupied residences. Also, 43% of the homes within 200 feet of this site are non-owner occupied homes. So, what is the proposal, what is our clientele? Uh, Jeff has been in Iowa City since, uh, graduating from college when he was 22 and has been a businessman, uh, most recently he's developed property and one of those properties is the Birkdale Condominiums in University Heights, um, right next to the University Athletic Club. Uh, through that experience, uh, and his knowledge of development, he believes there is a market for this type of condominium living in our community, and that his clientele would be empty-nesters, uh, retired or still working folks, and possibly young professionals who would like to walk to work at the University of Iowa Hospitals or the University. So, uh, we do believe that this is smart growth, taking advantage of a...a nice piece of property, and developing it very sensitively. There's four different sizes of units proposed. Um, they are all ranch-style, with their footprints, uh, ranging from 2,230 square feet to 1,830 square feet. That includes garages, so, um, and they are some partial basements in some of, or in most of the units, I should say. Um, probably all of the units, some of which are walkouts, uh, particularly those that are on the ravine. So our footprints are not huge, uh, and it's basically designed for single-story living, uh, for those who maybe retired, but would welcome back the family, uh, and so you could really live on one level, but the family may want to be in a lower level kind of additional bedroom situation. As Karen mentioned, uh, the density is 3.82 units per acre, uh, and so that is considerably less than the density of the surrounding Olive and Learner Court area. Uh, also the question came up This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 23 about if we did single-family's, how many units could we have on the site, and we actually did that exercise for the City, and we determined that 36 units could be developed on the site, meeting the current RS-8 zoning requirement. Uh, but the developer has chosen not to do that, um, by this PUD process, we are actually hoping to increase the openness, uh, both in real numbers, but also the feeling of openness between units by increasing that width. Again, another smart growth, uh, opportunity by clustering the units together we reduce their exterior envelope, save energy, and reduce the cost of homeownership or home maintenance, so that we are, again, looking to the future, uh, as energy prices continue to rise. Um, what did we learn from our neighborhood meeting? Uh, as I mentioned, we invited neighbors within 300 feet of the property and we had others who joined in in that process, and we welcomed everyone at the, uh, Taste of Melrose for a neighborhood meeting. Um, some of the things we heard was most definitely they didn't want student property, student rental property in the neighborhood. Uh, there was a lot of concern about traffic and the additional traffic, as you can imagine these three streets are dead-end streets, uh, that went off to "nowheres" land basically a green space, but uh, were never had a cul-de-sac at the end, uh, so obviously there was going to be development in the future, but when is the question. Um, some wanted to maintain that dead-end by putting a barricade in the street so that the Learner and Olive Courts were not connected. Uh, we didn't feel that that was going to solve any problems...traffic issues would probably aggravate people and add to problems. IJh, we also learned that there was concern about a pathway, and we actually changed the pedestrian path, uh, as we understood some of the issues there. Um, and many welcomed the relief from the football party central, uh, sense of this site, which is...has been the case for some years. What we've learned also from previous meetings that, um, the fewer units on the site, the more receptive the neighborhood was to the development. Uh, previous developers had proposed up to 72 units on this site. Um, and so we learned, keep the number down, make them as expensive as possible so students do not occupy them and become rental units, uh, and uh, talk about the traffic issues. And certainly we've done a lot of talking about the traffic issues. Since that meeting, before we submitted to the City, we reduced the number of units from 33 to 31, uh, we did relocate the pedestrian path, uh, to a more friendly neighborhood location, and we talked, uh, at some length with the City about the configurations of our streets and Karen mentioned, um, calming the streets by having fairly tight radiuses, uh, on the Learner Court, uh, street so that it doesn't become a real attractive speedway. Certainly, we want to calm the streets and keep them, um, very quiet. It's best for our development, as well. Um, with the price range of these units in the half million to $600,000, uh, that puts it out of the rental market pretty substantially. Um, as Karen mentioned, we've done things with transitioning from single-families (coughing) single units, uh, at that intersection of existing communities, set back our This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meetiug of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 24 unit on Melrose, which doesn't quite show up. I guess I should go to the full slide here. That would help. So we have set back this unit, um, and certainly by maintaining duplexes, we have spread the units apart from one another and gave a real, uh, better, uh, open space issue. Talked a lot about traffic counts, and uh, just wanted to give you a graphic of those counts. Before development, Learner has 98 trips. We're adding 84 for a total of 182. IJh, considerably less, of course, than 500. Olive Court, 170 now; we're adding 56 for a total of 226, uh, on Marietta, 49 now; we're adding 77 for a total of 126. As you can see, all of these are well, well below 500-trip count, and we also believe that seven trips per day may be very high for our clientele. Um, and maybe even exaggerating what our traffic counts maybe in reality. And certainly, we don't feel that this configuration is a shortcut to anywhere. I think, uh, you're not going to get anywhere any faster by taking these streets. So, uh, concern in the neighborhood also about some water, uh, pooling here. Uh, University Heights has a storm sewer that dumps right here, where my arrow is, just shy of our property line. LTh, we have, uh, we intend to pick that up and the that through our property so that there is no longer standing water. Uh, we will be building an earthen embankment here to carry our sewers across from one side of the ravine to the other. It also acts as a storm water retention. Uh, we just learned that the property to our east has been sold, and we have contacted that owner about actually combining our facility, our earth work, with their current, uh, earth work to actually further minimize a disruption to the ravine, and I think that's a very good plus for everyone. And we certainly want to reduce our disruption of the ravine in many ways. So we will not be maintaining any pools of water on our site. That's not the intention. By City ordinance we have to have storm water retention, but there will be no standing water, other than in a storm event, and certainly that would be dissipated very quickly, according to the ordinances. So...yes? Bailey: Kevin, um, how much longer do you have? Monson: I'm done. Bailey: Okay, wrap it up... Monson: I just want to show you images, if I could. Um, we did a survey of the architectural styles of the site and took photographs. Got a lot of interest from the neighborhood, why are we taking photographs, uh, in the neighborhood, uh, the police checked us out and they said we were legit. Um, you can see that we picked up on some of the stylistic characteristics of the neighborhood, and we've given them some labels. Uh, and then we used these, uh, to create some architectural styles, uh, for the new development. We have four different styles, four different color ways so we will have a great diversity of, uh, of styles, colors, and also sizes of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 25 units. So this is our Craftsman style, shown as the, uh, side-by-side unit, uh the garages are considerably set back from the front, emphasizing the front door and the space, the living space up front, uh, another style called Arches; we have a style called Porch; again, creating the popular, uh, idea of sitting out in front of your house. In this case it's in front of the garage door. Um, the Carpenter style, uh, you can see some of the color proposals that we have, uh, and then, um, giving you a sense of what the neighborhood would be. Uh, here's our floor plans, uh, 2,230 square feet, uh, on the site. The lazger sizes, uh, I need to clarify that. We don't have any residents units that are 4,000 or 5,000 square feet. Uh, when we put two together, that building is larger, but the benefit of that is we reduce energy costs, and we improve open space, so our units themselves aren't huge. A group together as a duplex might be, um, the lazger sizes indicate a duplex, not aside-by-side unit, okay? Correia: Kevin, given your market of empty-nesters and retirees, have you incorporated any universal design features to any of your... Monson: Yes, we certainly have looked at that, and you can see in the floor plans, uh, we've paid some attention to that. Uh, and there...what we anticipate there will be some customization, as well, with the interiors, particulazly...that's exactly what happed at Birkdale. Oops...well, I had a movie here, but it seems to be...not working. See if we can get her to go. Well, I think we'll stop with that. Bailey: Okay. Thank you, Kevin. Monson: Thank you. Bailey: All right. I understand we have a formal presentation from the neighborhood, as well. Um, given that the developer had 15 minutes, although I would encourage you to go to less, you will also have the same amount, to be fair. (unable to heaz response) Thank you. (unable to hear person) I think we have some Members up here who feel the same. Moore: Before I get started, this doesn't count against my time, I want to say thank you to Jerry and Marian for helping me out to bridge the Mac versus PC gap eazlier today. Bailey: It's a brave gap to bridge. Moore: My name is Doug Moore. I live at 77 Olive Court in University Heights, and as I said, I will try to be brief. Um, I'm here, uh, to talk about all of Learner, Highland, Tower, and Marietta. Our neighborhood. Quite a few of the neighbors, uh, residents, aze here tonight, and quite a few people could not come. Mr. Monson mentioned that 43% of the properties within This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 26 300 feet are not owner-occupied. That's not to say that these people don't caze. Uh, we've also in discussing this over the last several months, been contacted by several of those very landlords and you'll see from our petitions that several of them are very concerned by this, as well. I jumped ahead...our neighborhood, small footprints, hidden garages, the average square feet is about 1,200 squaze feet. It's very neighbor friendly. Houses are set back from the road, they are by no means garage centered. People walk around, we have sidewalks, I can speak for all of Learner intimately that we all know our neighbors and we like our neighbors and we all interact. Our kids play together, everyone's safe on the streets, and we love living there. Uh, it's very affordable, I'd say. I don't have the exact statistics, but it'll bear me out that there are some highs and some lows, but the average is probably around $220,000 for a home in this azea. Uh, I don't know of anyone in our neighborhood that is not a yeaz-round occupant. Um, people live and work mostly at the University because of the proximity to the Hospital, uh, but we have several people that work all the way up in Coralville, there's a couple people in Kalona that work at the medical device manufacturing company. Bottom line is, people live there year round, they're concerned about their properties and they're part of our community. Bottom line is this is a neighborhood, and these houses I have in this slide show here on the side, these are just, I have a sample from just about every street, uh, I'm not going to give the exact square footages. This is my neighbor's house. That's about 920, I know that one. This one's on Tower; that one's actually Warren's house on Koser. This is also Highland. Uh, that I believe is either Highland or Tower. This is definitely Highland, uh, Highland again also, and I left my house for last, because I, by virtue of good luck or bad luck have the largest house on all of the court, and I know it is exactly 1,700 square feet, and it looks pretty big from the street. I'm the first one to admit it. You'll notice though that you can't see the garage, or at least it doesn't stand out like a sore thumb. Again, I remind you, 1,700 squaze feet is my complete footprint. The proposed unit, the single units are 4,300 square feet of living space, with a 2,300 square foot footprint. The duplex units, obviously, have twice that amount of living space and a 5,500 square foot footprint. In my opinion, these are huge. They're five times lazge than my neighbor's house. They're gazage-focused, regazdless of how much setback the garage has, I believe it's approximately nine feet, they are still the focal point of these homes is the garage. There is zero public space in this entire development. The space between the houses and the gully is all private. Kazen mentioned the walkway -also private. Again, no public space. It's essentially a gated community with no gate, for people that live there half the year. We've been told by the developer we have afour-year best case construction period. At this time in four yeazs we're going to be figuring out who's going to run against President Obama or President McCain. That's a long time. That is forty times, I'm sorry, my mistake. Ten times the primary season that we've just finished up. Traffic -obviously it's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Format meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 27 been mentioned on, over and over again. Olive and Learner are currently dead-end streets with a 20-mile-an-hour speed limit. Every day, and many people are here from Olive and Learner and will reiterate this. We have people shooting down the street at quite a bit higher than that speed because they don't realize that it's adead-end. They get to the end and they turn around. Several of the fathers on the streets, myself included, will chase those people down and tell them it's 20 on their way back out to Melrose. What we're looking at for the connection is approximately right there to the other side. Now, we, the people that live there, we vehemently disagree with staff s assertion that it will not become acut-through, specifically during rush hour, at the end of the day from the Hospital, or rush hour coming in, from the Hospital, uh, to the Hospital. Solely because you can access Sunset quickly via going up Olive, around and down Koser. You miss the huge traffic backup that happens right at the Melrose Bridge. There's also a third lane there, that's the wide section, so if you're sitting in traffic, you can cut around your neighbor, and then turn down Olive, go across the new proposed loop, and go down Koser and pop back out. We already see it happening by people that don't understand that it's adead-end. It's going to get quite a bit worse. We firmly believe that connecting these streets will increase traffic and lower our property values. Any realtor that knows anything is going to tell you that a cul-de-sac is more valuable than a through street. There's a reason that all these subdivisions are built with cul-de-sacs, and we love our neighborhood. We love that our kids can play safe. The entire reason that I am beating on the traffic issue is right there. Drainage -this is a big issue. This is Melrose Lake today at 2:30, three hours after the rain stopped. That's the drainage. That's the only drainage. It's afour-foot vault with a metal grate on the top of it. What you see there, the dark part, that's the manhole on the top. The drainage actually is on the other side. On average I walk my dog down there, it is half-clogged almost all the time. There's all sorts of debris there. That hasn't been addressed. I'm not saying it's not fixable. I'm saying it hasn't been addressed at all. This is looking southeast. Those red condo buildings are owned by quite a few people whose kids live in them. They all live out of town. There's about 18 inches from that water line up to the bottom of those houses, and again, this is three and a half hours after the rain stopped. Many, many, many of these people have told us that they are very worried about what's going to happen with the drainage, and I definitely agree - 43% of `em. Over there it's probably quite a bit higher. I think it's about 80% that their kids are living in those condos. Drainage problems currently exist at both ends of the property. Staff said it, Kevin Monson said it, we're saying the same thing. There has been no independent engineering or view of the drainage at all. And as my neighbor Aaron brought up at the last meeting, everyone that's looked at this drainage issue has been paid by the developer. Melrose Lake's out, there's a vault with afour-foot grid to block debris and it's usually 50% plugged. It's real easy to stand here and scream and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 28 yell and moan about we don't want anything, and in previous years, before my time, it was said it should remain green space forever. Well, that's a great idea. Neuzils have every right to sell this property. They've put a lot of time in with parking over the years, and they're good neighbors to us. The...we decided to talk and decide what would work for us, and what we basically want is an extension of our neighborhood. IJh, families, kids, good development, houses that are not garage-centered, and I...the list is pretty simple. Houses that are similar in size and scale to the existing neighborhood. The proposed houses are nowhere near close to that. We want al] of Learner to remain dead-end or cul-de-sac, and again, there's some flexibility there. You can make a big wide cul-de-sac. We were told at one point that quote, unquote: the City made us do that. I worked my way up the food chain at police, fire and engineering, and I was told at all three departments, we would prefer to have a through street, but our, if we have room to turn the apparatus around, we can work with it. Public space to encourage interaction. That maybe is the biggest, and uh, we've seen that in a lot of other areas. Right up on Marietta there's a nice park. The people that live on the other side of George, uh, in the, uh, apartment and condo areas there, they use that constantly. There's always kids there. It's a neighbor...a gathering point for the neighborhood. We want places that families can afford that add to the character. This is, as I said before, pretty much an enclave for wealthy people that are not going to be there all year round. It doesn't really...we don't see that adding to the neighborhood. We see it as being vacant half the year, and a big field with huge houses. A good example of what I think would be a perfect idea for us is something like the Peninsula neighborhood, and of course the retort is, but they're not selling, and my reply is location, location, location. We're near the Hospital. There's a lot of demand. Houses don't sit on the market in University Heights very long. Oops, here's some more Peninsula things. You guys have all been up there. We've seen these, you know, here's amulti-family -that would work perfectly. I don't think anybody would go crazy with that. So, that's my entire spiel. I think I took a total of seven minutes, and I thank you for your time. Bailey: Thank you. All right, other members wishing to comment at the public hearing? And if you wish to comment, just state your name for the record, and this portion we'll limit comments to five minutes or less. Poroy: Hi (mumbled) my name is Oguz Poroy. I live on 36 Highland Drive. I'm one of the 57% that lives there. I will reiterate in my clumsy way what has already been said (unable to understand). I have several concerns. I was, I heard I think the Mayor of University Heights sort of approved this project. I am not aware that the authority vested in the Mayor of University Heights extends so far as to approve or disapprove development projects on behalf of the City. I certainly have not heard, uh, that being discussed. I know for a fact my opinion was not asked about This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 29 that. Other concern, when the Zoning Commission spoke, they used phrases such as "we felt," "we thought." As I point out, we are talking about significant, permanent detrimental effects on our lives as we perceive it, and I am concerned that you are asked to make a decision about these things, based on what certain staff members felt or thought. E live there, we go through traffic there every day, we have as much feeling and thought as to what will happen if these changes are approved. That is a big concern. Another big concern is that most of the talks so far on part of the Zoning Commission, as well as the developer, focused on how this is not going to be a problem. How the slopes are not going to crumble down, how the traffic is not going to jam up, how everything is not going to flood. The main issue in my mind is why? You are asked to make a change. There is already a zoning in place. You are asked to change it. What is the reason? Why do they want to change the zoning? They're already is a zoning in place. You are not asked to zone this place from scratch. Why should you change it? I have yet to hear a reason as to why the zoning of this place has to change, except that they want it. That needs to be answered, right? Why? It was sort of asked, well, what is it that they want to do that cannot be done with existing, and again, the answer from the Zoning Commission was probably something will happen. I don't want to have nearly a decade of construction... from my backyard, I S feet from my backyard. I don't want houses that are three times the size of mine that close, three times the value of mine, 15 yards from my backyard, based on what someone thinks and based on what they think is probable. I am one of the 57%. I live there. I bought a house there because I like the neighborhood. I like the older, well-maintained smaller houses with the big trees, with the green spaces. I don't like a mostly concrete covered area that is private, with its private path, and its wealthy people. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against wealthy people, but I don't like that they got a section within the heart of our neighborhood and put an invisible fence around it so that they can live their lives while we are not allowed to walk their pathways. I don't think this is a way to enhance the City of Iowa City. Your city ranks consistently high in the list of best places to live in the country. I think this is in part due to your diligent conservation of old neighborhoods. Your efforts to continue to, uh, keep them viable, as in the Northside neighborhood, as in Manville Heights. I would like to think - I'm prejudiced - but I would like to think that University Heights also contributes a little bit to that. If good rankings, if good cities, if happy living could have been achieved with developments like this, placed in the middle of old neighborhoods (unable to understand). I have...and it also has been insinuated that we want this to stay an open field. I have yet to hear someone to say that, that lives in that. We just don't want what's pointed out, a lot better than I'm able to do. We don't want houses that are three times the size of ours and three times the value of ours. We don't want a gated community with its own association and pathways and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 30 what not, that we just kind of look at from over our fence. What is being proposed here is, would, if approved, result in a permanent, significant, detrimental quality in my personal life, and I ask that you please take that into consideration before making a decision. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Others wishing to speak at the public hearing? Hettmansperger: My name is Sue Hettmansperger. I live at 114 Highland Drive, and I own my home with my husband. Um, I'd like to support all of the questioning that has gone on so faz of the assertions that this would be a desirable addition to our...our neighborhood. Um, I completely support his presentation, um, I believe that the two-unit building duplexes, uh, would, are problematic for the azea. There are already way too many of these, uh, I consider that high density. Um, I would much prefer single- family homes that were unique, like all of the homes in my neighborhood on Highland Drive, and that's why we moved there, for the chazacter and historic, um, the quiet of the neighborhood, rather than increasing the density. I really feel that this will, uh, also be a detriment to my neighborhood, and um, I would prefer that if you, if any development happens at all, that it be single-family homes, that are more unique in character, rather than as mono-culture, and I use that word which was brought up in one of the meetings, as well, that these...no matter how hard they try to sort of, um, emulate the look of...of our homes, there's still a mono-culture aspect to the duplication of, um, of the units. Um, I believe that fewer units should be allowed, if you approve, um, a zoning change. Um, I believe that this is not compatible, um, with our neighborhood, and um, I believe that there's a problem too with the encroachment of the protected slopes. Um, I really don't think that, um, I think they ought to alter their plan so that those protected slopes are not, um, impinged upon because 1 think that that could be a real, a real problem to the, um, to that whole area, which supports a lot of wildlife and is really quite lovely and beautiful within the neighborhood. So I really see that being affected, um, and a problem, as well. Thank you very much. Bailey: Thank you, Sue. Plate: I'm Harold Plate. We bought our house in fall of 62, at 50 Highland Drive. We've seen a lot of changes over there. We bought there and they had sheep back there in the field, and uh, usual children grew up with ours, and uh, they moved away, and I feel I've had enough experience all the football traffic in there, fighting and everything, they ripped my fence out one game, four times, and I'm in favor of this. Bailey: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 31 Goethe: Hi, my name is Renee Goethe. I live at 103 Highland Drive. I am one of the, one of the property owners within 200 feet of the proposed development. I have a few points that I want to raise, regarding this proposed development. Some of which will be a repetition, but some will be quite different. I live on the west side of the ravine, uh, as proposed. I don't know if it's possible to get the maps up again, yes, I live...right over, ah, right over in this area. My backyard is on that ravine. Right now, there is standing water in my backyard. This has been the case since the individuals who owned the property next to us, between my property and the Neuzil's field, put in fill. This was long before I bought the property. They put in fill. The drainage tiles were put in improperly, which means that there is sort of a dam between my property and the Neuzil's field. Water backs up into my backyard, water backs up into the Neuzi]'s field on the eastern side. This has been going on for yeazs. I believe the woman who owned the property before me came to the City Council several times, protesting the way the fill was put in. She attempted to bring a lawsuit against the other property owners. She eventually got very tired, sold the house and moved to a retirement home. She's since passed away. This is not going to...what they're planning to do is not going to help, not in the least, with the drainage. In fact, Mr. Hendrickson and his proponents like to claim that they are green developers. That they're going to be developing the land sensitively. That, what was it, 73% of the land was going to remain green -that's because they're clustering everything in the developable areas. They're going to be covering the higher elevation area with concrete and hard surfaces. The amount of run-off coming out of that field and going into the ravine, I have noway of estimating how much is going to increase. Already Melrose Lake, as you've seen from the shots, is at overflow level. I can't tell by looking at the engineer's specifications where the water from his new sewage system will go. I am not an engineer, but I'm not stupid either. You show me where water is going to be taken and I can follow the specifications. That's not clear from anything I've seen from the developer. The only place I can see for the water to go is Melrose Lake. Melrose Lake is also the home of millions of mosquitoes, as well as other pests. We have a terrible problem with not only mosquitoes, but gnats. I am concerned about the increase of disease vector carrying critters in our area. We do not want more water; we want less water. What Mr. Hendrickson is proposing to do will increase the run-off considerably. Secondly, I have concerns about the, uh, the marketing plan that is being presented. The reason why Mr. Hendrickson is proposing to be building in there for four years is because he's following the same business proposal he used when constructing the Birkdale units. He opens ground after he has sold a previous unit, which means that development in the field will go on, depending on how well, how brisk, sales can be. This is a problem in a time when, let's see, last week the New York Times reported a 17% decline in new home sales nationally. This is particularly This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 32 significant in high-end, uh, priced homes, such as those Mr. Hendrickson is proposing to build. Uh, what's more, the...the decline in home sales are particularly significant for homes that are second homes, homes for particularly retired people. We don't see that there is necessarily a market for these homes. Even if he does market to young professionals, young professionals who are working at the hospital will be encountering severe debt loads. They will not be coming in to buying a first home with the ability to put down a significant chunk in downpayment, which means they'll be applying for jumbo mortgages, again, reports regarding the availability of jumbo mortgages in our restricted housing market are significantly decreased. Um, so what happens when these condos don't sell? What happens when we break ground, when a year from now, a year and a half from now, Mr. Hendrickson and his company finds that they cannot sell what they've already constructed, or that sales are so diminished that they can't conceive of breaking ground again in the near future. Are they going to be standing again before the Planning and Zoning Committee, asking for more easements? Are they going to be standing before you, asking for a different plan, only this time lower end condominiums, which will be open to student sales. Will they be asking for apartments to be built back there? What's next? This is the thin end of the wedge. He says he's a green developer. I say he's just yet another cover-it-with-asphalt developer. This is the best proposal we've seen so far for the Neuzil field. It doesn't mean it's the right proposal. The lesser of two evils is not a good. Please vote against this. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Other comments at the public hearing? Luzzie: Hi, my name is Chris Luzzie, and I live at 338 Koser. I am not one of the folks who are directly, um, surrounding this, but someone whose house backs up onto Melrose, and that's my concern. Um, even though the issue of traffic on Melrose has been raised in prior meetings, uh, none of the staff, either oral or written comments, have really addressed that particular concern. They've looked instead at the local streets and uh, what the effect of this development will have on the local streets. Um, the issue of Melrose and the traffic on Melrose is something that is of serious concern to the University Heights' residents. Recently a attempt to rezone was, uh, denied, at least based in part on, uh, the additional, um, burden on Melrose, uh, in addition, our Comprehensive Plan is, uh, to keep Melrose two lanes and not be four lanes. As you can kind of see, Melrose really goes through the middle of University Heights and to make that into a large arterial street would really change the character of our neighborhood. Uh, let me just give you some really quick figures; uh, in May 2007, the JCCOG, uh, 2007, 2035 long-range, multi-modal transportation plan - whythey come up with these names I can't believe! Uh, did traffic counts on Melrose. According to the plans, based on 2002 traffic counts, Melrose on various portions already exceeded capacity. Uh, by 2035, all of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 33 Melrose will exceed capacity and the report didn't really tell me when it was going to hit, uh, capacity. And that's with no further development in this area. Um, portion of Melrose will be further reduced because the plan now is to turn part of it from three to two lanes, and put in a bike lane, and actually make the space, um, smaller so that it will hook up with the Johnson County trails provision with eight-foot sidewalks and that kind of thing. Um, and the JCCOG plans don't have anything in there about changing Melrose, um, what we've got is what we're going to have. That's current plan. Uh, the JCCOG count in Apri12006 showed it to be, um, about, between 12,500 and 14,500 on various parts of Melrose within University Heights. According to JCCOG, when, uh, streets get between 12,000 and 14,000, you're really starting to look at four lanes. And at least according to the University Heights, that's just not going to happen. Um, the counts that the applicants provided in their information submitted to Planning and Zoning indicated traffic counts at 15,500 on Melrose. So apparently these numbers have already increased since the April numbers that we, uh, got from JCCOG. So it's been noted before, this is kind of an unusual situation for you where, uh, really the impact of this development is almost exclusively on University Heights. Um, and I just would ask you to...with Melrose already at capacity, even though the additional burden may only be another 150 to 100 cars a day, that's only going to push burden on an already overburdened street, and the particular point where some of these streets come out, as you can see, uh, is going to make very difficult, um, and even more problematic for those of us who managed to sit through rush hour, be able to watch, uh, traffic behind our houses, um, it's a very congested area already. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Other comments? Eckey: Uh, Doris Eckey, 33 Highland Drive. Um, I decided I would just read you this email that I sent you eazlier, essentially just read it so I don't ramble on and on. Um, I'd like to register my opposition to the rezoning of Neuzil's field. (coughing) Excuse me. I believe that the development plan by MS...MMS Consultants Incorporated would be harmful to the neighborhood for several reasons. The 31 planned luxury condos priced at $550,000 to $700,000 each, and with footprints of up to 5,400 square feet. In the email I mistakenly said "5,000," it's actually a maximum of 5,400 - that's for the footprint. Uh, these aze disproportionately lazge and expensive for the azea. Houses in the surrounding neighborhood are typically modest, uh, costing azound $200,000 with 1,000 square feet; maybe you know, a little bit more. That would be a typical house. Mine's smaller than that. Uh, so the question is, who will buy these luxury condos? The developer seems to think they will be snapped up by wealthy alumni who will purchase them as second homes. That's what we were told at the meeting at Taste on Melrose, that they thought the market was "second-home buyers." Uh, these alumni, perhaps ardent Hawkeye fans, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 34 would occupy them for part of the year, particularly during football season and abandon them the rest of the time. The condos would be too expensive for young medical residents working at University Hospitals, who have medical school loans to pay off. They could afford the $200,000 houses in the surrounding neighborhood, but they couldn't, uh, afford luxury condos, at least not most of them. Uh, young families starting out could not afford them either. Those who are financially well established would probably prefer living in a uniformly upscale area, not being marooned on an island in a sea of modest starter homes. So it all comes down to the wealthy second homebuyers. Will they purchase these condos? A dozen years ago the answer would have been yes. Home prices were rising at the time, the condos would have made excellent investments, in addition to the fun and the convenience of having a congenial place to stay during football weekend or while attending concerts at Hancher, or visiting friends. Uh, but the current financial climate, especially in real estate, uh, is vastly different. I believe that now the answer is "no." Many of these condos would not sell. Home prices are dropping, not rising. The condos would be very risky investments indeed. Home prices nationally fell 14.1 % in March from a year earlier, and sales of new homes have fallen 42% over the last year, according to the New York Times, May 28, 2008. Uh, furthermore, food and fuel prices have risen dramatically, as we all know, uh, adding to inflation pressures and I believe it's only a matter of time, uh, before interest rates will have to rise to counteract inflation, uh, making homes less affordable and much less attractive as an investment. The developers plan to stretch out construction of the condos, as has been mentioned. Uh, financing each subsequent building from proceeds of the sale of the previous one. Construction is projected to last at least four yeazs, in a best-case scenario, and could take considerably longer, maybe up to seven years. During this extended period, the quality of life in the sunound neighborhood will be diminished, as residents are forced to put up with construction noise and pollution, uh, equipment, traffic, and various eyesores. Property values in the neighborhood will drop substantially during this extended period of time. It wouldn't be so bad if the condos actually sold, and were completed in a timely manner, say within two years, but it is likely that many will not sell. The project may well run out of money and be abandoned halfway through, unoccupied and unfinished structures are magnets for crime, especially considering the high population density in the area. On an average day, 15,500 people are in the Hospital complex. University of Iowa officials say that this is the most densely populated area in the entire state of Iowa, according to a May 17`h article in the Press-Citizen. Add in 80,000 Hawkeye revelers on football Saturdays, converging on a field containing abandoned and unfinished buildings, a field in which hundreds of people are accustomed to parking and tailgating, and you have a possible recipe for vandalism and petty crimes, if not worse. So what is the alternative to the condo project? Most This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 35 residents of the area would naturally prefer that the land remain an empty field, or be converted into a lovely park. iJh, but if this heaven on earth is not feasible, then the most logical and best option would be to simply extend Learner, Olive and Marietta, ending each in a separate cul-de-sac to avoid the cut-through and resulting in increased traffic on these streets. And building modest, single-family homes along these extensions in the size and price range of houses in the surrounding area. The market for such houses would be far broader than the market for the proposed condos. Consequently, it is far more likely that they would sell. They would also be occupied year-round, and the occupants, unlike their part- yearcondo counterparts, would be true members of the community, adding to its stability and richness. Houses in the $200,000 to $250,000 range might not seem as profitable as luxury condos to developers. And they might not seem as attractive to the City of Iowa City, seeking to increase its tax base; however, modest houses that sell are more profitable and contribute more to the tax base than luxury condos that do not sell. A development of modest homes could yield developers a modest profit, and that is probably the most that can be expected in these economic times. Bailey: Thank you, Doris. Other comments? Neuzil: ...put this tag down here, is that what I do? Bailey: That works usually, yeah. Neuzil: Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Neuzil: I'm not accustomed to talk at this short of time, but I'll try to do my best. Bailey: (laughing) I appreciate that. Neuzil: Make it very brief. I'm here to speak on behalf of the developer, which I think he's done a marvelous job. Bailey: Sir, what's your name? Neuzil: My name is Jack Neuzil. I'm one of the owners, or of that piece of property. I do not live there, but I am one of the family. My family has had that property for, way back when, you know, and uh, it was taken...we were in the country originally, and of course we had cows and sheep and dogs and chickens and geese and everything, and Learner Court was Learner Dairy. It wasn't that. And Melrose Apartments was the ice skating rink. So, I've seen a lot of things happen over this period of time, and I think we have been good neighbors to the people. I think I can This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 36 speak a little bit about land use. I spent 15 years on the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission. I've attended enough planning meetings and stuff. If I'd have gotten CEU's I could probably have a Ph.D. by now. So, I...this parcel of land is ideally situated for development. It has all the things that are necessary for this kind of a thing. I personally would have preferred a much higher density kind of thing, with much open space and less needed for cars and so on and so forth. With the price of gas what it is, it's...it was originally zoned when the City took it into Iowa City and with their Master Plan it was zoned R3A, which meant 44 units per acre. That was back when the planning was hired by professional, determined what areas should be used and so on. It was based on what the need was for then, and the need now is even greater than it was then. And we cannot afford to take our agricultural land that we have in the County and put it into apartments and those kind of buildings when we have suitable space within a reasonable distance to where the people want to live, next to the University, the largest employer at least in eastern Iowa, and so this makes it an ideal place, and I think the developers have done a very reasonable job in making a plan to provide the kind of setting that people are going to want to buy and to live in. I don't think there's going to be a problem, uh, with traffic and all these other kinds of things. There's one other thing I would like to clear up about the Supreme Court, uh, hearing that we attended. I think the statement was that the Supreme Court ruled that we couldn't have that kind of density. I think the original plan went to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that the zoning, the proper...was the proper zoning. The City chose to take it to the full Supreme Court and all the Supreme Court ruled was that the City had the right to zone. Not that that property had to be zoned, change the zoning on the property. I just want to make that, try to make that cleaz. But, uh, I could go on and talk on and on about how I think, uh, this thing is going to be a benefit, certainly to the community. It's not going to be a disaster. It's not going to hurt the house, the cost of the other houses in the neighborhood. That's just not true. If there's not a demand for the houses, this kind of market, they're not going to be built, but I think the developer has had enough experience to know, he knows what he's doing and will do a very fine job, and the City can be proud of it. So, there's a lot of other things that I'd be happy to talk with you at any time if you have any questions about some of these things. The kind of agreements that we went in way back when Tim Brandt was the Mayor and so on, and they assured us, don't worry about all these kind of things. We...we'll take care, you're going to be, uh, not going to be put upon by the, by the University Heights and other kinds of things. You're in Iowa City and we (mumbled) taken care o£ So, thank you very much for your time. Bailey: Thanks, Jack. Other comments? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 37 Kamps: Hi, I'm Mazk Kamps. I live at 1104 Tower Court. Um, I'm at the southwest entrance there where, um, the land that we're talking about tonight. I'm a neighbor. I've been a neighbor over there, not in that particular house, but in that same neighborhood since 1984 roughly, with a few years when I built a new home out west of town. Um, I'd like to...I would love that land to stay a pazk. I mean, who wouldn't? It'd be perfect. It's a great location. It's got everything that the neighborhood would want to be a great park, but I don't think that's going to happen, unless the City Council decides to purchase the property, but I haven't heazd that yet. Um, my feeling is, uh, the Neuzils have been fabulous neighbors. They've never complained about who's back there. They've never had a problem with people using the land. Um, I think it's time for Greg and his family to be able to sell his property, for the profit that is there. He's not getting any younger, and um, I think that that is his right to sell the property. I am a realtor. I am an owner of Coldwell Banker. Um, I've heard a lot of comments about the real estate market. I didn't heaz any of the local figures. Everybody was quoting New York Times or other national publications. And I would say that while our market probably isn't as vibrant as it was in 2005, uh, I sold a house today. I sold one last Saturday, and one of my listings sold last week. And, um, I'm not one of the big producers. I do a fair amount of business, but I wouldn't put me at the top of the heap. My concerns about that land back there is home football Saturdays and, um, like I said, I used to live at 58 Olive Court, which is the last house on the left-hand side, uh, split foyer down there, and uh, I have two daughters, 22 and 19, that were raised, uh, among the revelers, and uh, we witnessed many things that a parent shouldn't have to witness and explain to their daughters, going on in our backyazd, but it did, and it will continue to do that. It's a mess before the game; it's a mess after the game; it's a mess during the game. Fortunately the Neuzils are very considerate of the neighborhood and get it cleaned up in a very timely fashion, but it's time for that land to be developed. Um, I just want to, uh, issue my support. It's...I've lived in Iowa City since 1976. I've seen a lot of plans for back there. I've seen other developments, like right at the end of my street -Tower Court - I come right out to Grandview Court Aparhnents. That's in University Heights. It's all boarded over. I don't know if you've been up there recently, but um, you know, and now the developer out of Des Moines, not a local person, appazently has gone under, so I really don't know what I'm going to see every day when I come out of, uh, Tower Court and hit George Street, and I'm looking at, uh, boazded over windows. It's...it's definitely not a treat. I've known Jeff Hendrickson since I bought my first house in 1984. Jeff was the prior owner. Um, I don't have a real close relationship with him, but I consider him a friend of mine. I've seen the work that he has done, both professionally and as an observer, and it's a fabulous product that he puts on the mazket. It's location, location, location in our business, as you know. This is a fabulous location. Don't let the price, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 38 um, be discounted that it's not going to sell, because the price won't be really an object over there. I think that, um, I'm...I'd be ready to sell those houses as soon as they come on the market. So, that's my feeling on it. Um, I just think it's time that that land is developed. Thank you very much. Bailey: Thanks, Mark. Olson: Hi, my name is Aaron Olson. I live at 79 Olive Court. I live actually six feet from the property that's in question. Um, one of the condominiums will be sixteen feet from my kitchen. Um, so obviously I'm a little biased, I'll admit that. Um, I guess I'd just like to try to bring up a few things that I didn't think were necessarily made cleaz, maybe emphasize a couple other things. Um, first thing is, is right now the land outside my kitchen...kitchen window matches the level of my land. The new, under the new proposal the...the land will be dropped four feet and a retaining wall will be put in. Um, I don't think anybody's talked about that yet today. Um, the density has been, uh, has been advertised to you as being lower than would be expected and lower than the surrounding community. I think that's misleading because if you look at the actual developable land azea there, or if you look at, uh, the number of square feet on the land, I think you would find out realistically that it's actually higher density. You can see that even by looking at the picture and look at the distance between the units there, versus on the existing streets. Um, you know, there were a couple points made here just recently about...about the need for housing in that area and that's great location, but it's also been said that it would be empty-nesters and temporazy, uh, temporary residents, so I don't think that those azguments hold much water. Um, and I think if they are temporary residents, even if they are wealthy, I think there's a good chance that there maybe some, um, more transient occupants in there. Um, one thing I brought up at the Planning and Zoning Commission I still haven't heard addressed really yet is I'd like to, uh, I think that the project would work, but I'd like to hear what happens if it doesn't. Um, we know that the planned construction time, if everything went perfectly, is four years. Um, me and my new wife, this is our first home. Um, we're planning on having a baby soon and certainly four years of construction activity outside...outside our walls isn't good, but I think it's likely to be longer than that, and then again, I'd like to heaz what happens if the project doesn't work well, if there are trouble selling these expensive homes. Um, lastly I guess I...even though I'm biased, um, I try to look at it from a community perspective and from your perspective, and I guess on the positives I see, um, I see money. You'll receive increases in tax revenues for the City, probably pretty substantially with nice properties like this. Uh, obviously there's money in it for the developer. There's money in it for the property owners, which certainly aze...everybody has those rights, and I wouldn't want to take them away. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 39 Um, but on the neg...the other positive is we remove the football tomfoolery, um, I think there's probably other ways that we could do that, without...without this happening. Um, I guess on the negative side is obviously it's a huge reduction in green space. One of the largest green spaces remaining in the City of Iowa City, I believe. Um, we've already talked about that there's going to be what sounds like pretty significant, I think it's nicely put as a "ecological encroachment" on some environmentally sensitive areas. Um, I think our world in general goes too much that way, and we could do with less of that. I think as a city it seems like you folks have done a good job with that. That's all. Thanks. Bailey: I have been asked by my colleagues to take a break, so we will take a break until five after nine and then continue the public hearing. (Break) Bailey: In light of the hour, we will be continuing this public hearing until June 17~h. So, do I have a motion to continue the public hearing. Champion: So moved. Correia: Second. Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by Correia. Dilkes: Can I interrupt for a minute? Bailey: Yes, please. Dilkes: I'd like to explain what the consequences of that are. Um, at...at the time the public hearing closes, um, that's the deadline for petitions to be filed that would, um, that could trigger asuper-majority requirement on the Council. So, for instance, if you close the public hearing tonight, those would have to be submitted prior to the close tonight, then you would have to defer consideration, first consideration, um, in order to give us time to calculate whether they meet those requirements. If you continue the public hearing tonight, those petitions will not need to be filed until July, or June 17`h. Um, and then at that time, if they are filed, when the public hearing closes we will again have to defer, in order to give us time to calculate. Bailey: Okay. Wilburn: How does that work with, uh, a nearby municipality, in terms of super majority, is it just Iowa City? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of Juue 3, 2008. #6 Page 40 Dilkes: No. It's just the 200-foot area from the exterior of the property to be rezoned. Wilburn: Okay, all right. Bailey: Any other questions about the implications of continuing the public heazing? Okay, all those in favor of continuing the public hearing say aye. Those opposed same sign. Okay, we'll continue the public hearing. I would entertain a motion to defer... Kan: Motion to accept correspondence. Wilburn: Move to accept correspondence. Correia: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Correia. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Wilburn: Move to, uh, defer until June 17~h Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. Wright: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Wright. Um, discussion? Champion: Well, I don't know if any of us want more information. I...I have no problems with developing this land, I'll tell you that right up front. I think it should be developed. The concern I've heazd here tonight, that um, makes me want to think about this a little bit is the size of the buildings. I can understand from the neighborhood that that could be kind of overwhelming, uh, well, I can tell you right now I think this land should be developed, so don't think I don't want it developed. I'm not going to make that into a pazk. It's too valuable. But I do think that is a legitimate concern and I need to pursue that in my own mind for a while. Dilkes: Well, and also remember, we're continuing the public hearing so you want to keep an open mind until... Champion: Oh, I do have an open mind. I always have an open mind. (laughter) Bailey: Other comments related to deferring this to June 17`h? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 41 Champion: That's what I want to think about. Bailey: All those in favor say aye. Those opposed same sign. Okay, the motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 42 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. ~ CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 11.7-ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON RUPPERT ROAD WEST OF OLD HIGHWAY 218 FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) TO INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI- 1). (REZ08-00004) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Champion: Move second consideration. Bailey: Moved by Champion. Correia: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Correia. Um, any ex parte communications that you wish to disclose at this time? Okay. Roll call...or discussion. Sorry! Discussion? Yes, it has been, sorry! Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 43 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. g) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 8.95-ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON RUPPERT ROAD WEST OF OLD HIGHWAY 218 FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) TO NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC (P- 1).(REZ08-00004) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Wright: Move second consideration. Correia: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wright, seconded by Correia. Um, ex parte communication at this time? Discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 44 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. h) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF GALWAY HILLS SUBDIVISION PARTS 10 & 11 IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB06-00003) Champion: Move the resolution. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? I see people who might be interest...to speak to this issue. Please approach the podium, state your name for the record, and limit your comments to Five minutes or less. LeaVesseur: Good evening. My name is Jay LeaVesseur and uh, I live at 742 Tipperary Road. Um, I sent an email over earlier, uh, that I believe was entered into everybody's packets to review, and I guess, uh, like I said, obviously in my perfect world we wouldn't build the road, um, but I don't live in a perfect world, and you know, from a practical point of view, I think we can overcome the fire and safety argument that you need to get back on the backside of that subdivision. You know, Lord help you if you have a heart attack between 7:00 and 8:00 A.M., between August ls~ and April or June 15~, because you're going to have a hard time getting into that subdivision, uh, off of Melrose, uh, as it is. Uh, I guess the point I want to bring up, and I think the point that came through in the Planning and Zoning, or at least the argument that we made at Planning and Zoning that I think had some traction, and uh, got a little bit of inroads, uh, was two-fold and number one is that I think it's highly unlikely and probable that we're going to uh, bring up traffic counts again, and that it's likely these connector streets are going to hit that 2,500 car per day number pretty quickly with all the activity that's planned. If you do the math between what's already going to be there with, uh, Melrose Meadows and when you add on with the Latter Day Saint Church, you do the traffic counts of what they've added in, uh, what they took just a couple of weeks ago, um, you add the numbers up that come up with the 51 proposed lots, plus the likelihood of, uh, I always forget the name -Walden Ridge, uh, traffic coming through off of Rohret and the counts that they've got there, plus the fact that there's a proposed daycare. We're flirting already with some fairly...numbers that are fairly close to the 2,500. Um, you know, the area where this connects goes right through the trailhead for the Willow Creek Park. Uh, it also cuts through the proposed city park area. I'd make an argument that you have an obligation to protect that trailhead, it's the only green space in that entire subdivision, and...and I'd make the argument that you have an obligation to protect access to that, um, and I would also make the argument that now is the time to have the developer develop this road properly so that we can overcome the problems that are This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 45 pretty likely to anticipate. I think that if we're back here two years from now talking about adding speed bumps, uh, to slow down the traffic, everybody will have failed at their job here. Um, you know, we don't want lumps of asphalt. We think that with what's going on, uh, with the level of development that is coming in to this subdivision, and you know, I don't know if it's relevant or not, but we're looking at over $4 million worth of lots on the 51 lots that he wants to add in here. I don't think it's too big of an obligation to ask them to design it on the front side, uh, to already have some of the traffic calming. You know, at P&Z some of the ideas that came up were putting in boulevards with trees in the center to slow things down, um, community gardens and all of that kind of stuff. Um, I think those are probably good ideas, and what we're really asking you to do, you know, like I said. It's my fantasy that you'd turn the road down. That's not going to happen and we all know that. Um, but I think the reality of it is you need to look at, this is the time to actually develop those features in, um, you know, we have neighbors that live down there now, and one the points I brought up in my email is, I mean, people go off road on this thing now, uh, there's cars that go through there on a daily basis, when it's just the gravel bike path, and you, and we're just validating it by making it a straight run up Tipperary, um, and over to Dublin. Um, so anyhow, I guess to summarize it real quickly, two points: this is the opportunity to design this road properly. If we're going to come to the fatalistic conclusion that it has to connect, please put some additional restrictions and retain the access and protect that trailhead, uh, by putting the traffic calming features in now, as opposed to waiting to do it later, when our only alternative is going to be to throw down speed bumps. You have a ]ot more alternatives right now, uh, this land has been bought and sold and paid for many, many times over, uh, I like to exaggerate a little bit, but I think there's at least 1501ots in this subdivision, if not pushing 200, so I think, millions and millions of dollars have been made by the developer on this land. The average home that they're building now is pushing $300,000 to $400,000 in there. It's not an unreasonable request to ask you, and uh, to ask the developer to take an extra step and maintain the access and allow the future plans. The proposed city park that's down at the end eventually, potentially is going to hook up with Hunter's Run, uh, and have some area down there. Take the steps right now, uh, to design this a little bit better, rather than just making it a quick curb, and uh, another raceway through Galway Hills over to Camp Cardinal Road. So, thank you. Bailey: Thank you, Jay. I know we discussed this last night, but um, Planning Director is here if you have additional questions, and I was wondering, if those were some of the ideas you explored when you looked at connecting the roads. I mean, I would not like to see this neighborhood back for traffic calming, and... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 46 Davidson: Specific ideas you're wondering about? Bailey: Boulevard or other ideas to do...traffic calming... Davidson: The, uh, primary...if I can bring (mumbled) Uh, the primary thing that we have, um, considered in terms of trying to build traffic calming into the subdivision, because the preceding speaker is...is absolutely correct. In...in every location where we're had to put speed bumps and some of the other things that we've done through the traffic calming program, which is a great program, but it does indicate that we failed, in the subdivision design, if we, uh, do that, and so what we've tried to do, uh, particularly you can see here, parts 10 and 11 that are proposed, is build a circuitous street system that is not a, you know, we know from the engineering of our existing collector streets that when we have straight shots, like River Street, like Friendship Street, like Wayne -these are streets that are very familiar to all of you that are collector streets in your own neighborhoods, Glendale in my own particular neighborhood, 7`h Avenue, when we have straight shots, that's where people build up speed. So what we've tried to do in this particular neighborhood is build a very circuitous, uh, street system that will discourage, uh, through traffic, and the friction, well, discourage speeding traffic, and the friction of going around these curves will naturally slow people down. Uh, the outlying reckless drivers that we all know create all the problems, you know, we're trying to do the best we can, can we guarantee that every single driver will go slowly? Of course not, but we really feel like the great majority of traffic, because of the street design, we are hoping...and that's how we've couched it, that this is adequate to slow people down, not provide a straight shot. If we've failed, then the neighborhood does have the option of the traffic calming program, but I really believe that we've got a subdivision design here that is going to be a long ways to helping. Bailey: And as with our other public streets, there'll be parking allowed on this street, con-ect? Davidson: Yes. Typically, we...allow for on-street parking. If a neighborhood then subsequently, well, if there's a safety issue, we'll remove it at the City's discretion. Otherwise, we typically leave it up to the neighborhood as to whether or not they want to preserve on-street parking or not. Bailey: And then I had a question last night about the trail and the road intersecting. Give me an example of where else that happens, and what happens... Davidson: Um, there's one, I was thinking about that after the meeting last night, there's one other example I can think of Friendship Street bisects Court Hill Park, and what I think, at least in my feeling what it does in essence is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 47 create two separate parks on either side of the street. There's not a lot of interaction across the street, um, hopefully we would have a similar situation here. I think you're aware that outlot B will, well, that doesn't really show it very well. Let's see...I'm sorry. Outlot B is actually part of a larger parcel, here, that will extend over to the right-of--way of Highway 218, that'll actually create a much larger parcel here, and then outlot A will be a smaller parcel, but, uh, you know, with the street bisecting them, we would not expect to encourage any activities that cause people to have to cross between the two sides of the park. That's similar to what happens at Court Hill Park. Bailey: And what about the trail crossing? That's just simply... Davidson: The trail crossing, obviously the Willow Creek Trail, you know, it crosses Benton Street and Mormon Trek Boulevard, just to the east of here, so obviously it does cross major streets. Um, hopefully with the collector street, the volumes will be modest enough that it won't be an issue, but obviously there's a conflict point there and we'll have to install traffic control signage there, if need be. Champion: Is the street that's going down the middle of the park, is it level with the park? Davidson: It's ele...there's...where the culvert is over the creek, it's actually elevated there. Hayek: Jeff, as a, uh, student at City High School many years ago, uh, I wasn't known for amving on time, uh, in the mornings, and I treated Morningside Drive like a, like a personal speedway on occasion. Davidson: I believe we have traffic calming on that speed now. Hayek: We do have traffic calming on that speedway, and...and the reason I throw out that anecdote is that, um, this is not just a residential area. It is a, or will become a route for many high school students to reach West High. To what extent have you or others on staff factored in the high school driver. Davidson: We tried to get as good a handle on that as we could, Matt. Uh, eventually in the neighborhood to the west of here, uh, Hunters Run and Southwest Estates at least is what it originally started at, Phoenix Drive and Slothower Road will provide a second connection to Melrose Avenue for that neighborhood. In the intervening time, this street will be used by that neighborhood, as well. Uh, we asked West High. They have 120 students in the, uh, neighborhood directly to the west of here, total. IJh, so that would give me an idea of to and from each day that you would have those, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 48 that many additional trips, uh, that was factored in to the traffic analysis and still didn't result in, uh, the street being over the threshold of what we considered. Now we all know that that is a cohort class that does tend to drive fast, as you alluded to, so there maybe the need for some additional police enforcement, uh, if that gets to be an issue. (several talking) But we do see it as a short-term issue until Phoenix Drive and Slothower Road connect up to Melrose. Correia: 120 total high school students? Davidson: Pardon? Correia: 120 total, or that age... Davidson: 120 total is what they told us. Correia: Okay. Champion: ...broken down by sex. I think males seem to drive faster. (laughter) Correia: (several commenting) Is there a pedestrian connection between the neighborhood and West High, side...that you don't have to go to Melrose? Davidson: Neighborhood and West... Correia: Isn't there, there is....that's what I thought. (people talking in audience) Davidson: People in the neighborhood indicate that there is a connection. I know there is on the other side. I wasn't sure if there was on this side. Correia: Okay. Bailey: If you do have comments you're welcome to come to the podium, but they're not really official unless we get them on tape. So...please do so, avail yourself to the opportunity. Davidson: Any other questions for me? Wilburn: It's kind of like a tree falling in the forest, if nobody's there. Lombardo: Madame Mayor. Bailey: Sorry! I didn't recognize the voice. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 49 Lombardo: Just another person in a seat over here (laughter). Um, last night I seem to recall a discussion about neckdowns, and we were discussing whether or not it was in this development or not. Davidson: It is not in, uh, Galway subdivision. It is in, uh, the subdivision directly to the south, but this portion, basically right off the map here, this portion of, uh, Shannon Drive further to the south does have neckdowns at two or three intersections. That was done specifically because that is more of a straight shot, and, uh, we wanted to try and slow vehicles down there. Bailey: Other places that would be appropriate on this connection? Davidson: We don't feel the neckdowns are necessary because of the circuitous nature of the street network here. Bailey: If we felt they were necessary, are there places it would be appropriate? Davidson: Well, they're not proposed currently so they would have to be an amendment to the plat, if we were to do that. Bailey: Sure. Hayek: Are...are things like neckdowns, or additional signage, or speed humps, um, are those items that are more costly to implement two years from now, as opposed to, you know, whenever the thing is implemented. Davidson: Obviously retrofitting something like neckdowns would be expensive, you'd be breaking the curb and...and I will be honest with you. The neckdowns, in terms of the before and after studies we've done, are not that effective at slowing down traffic. Speed humps are. Speed humps are effective at slowing down traffic 24/7 because they are a physical feature out there in the street. Hayek: And those are easy to retroactively fit... Davidson: Yes. Hayek: ...drop the asphalt? Davidson: They're not only retroactively to put down, but then if you want to take them up later, you know, we always survey the neighborhood one year after to see if they want to keep them. They're relatively easy to take up, as well. Bailey: Other... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 50 Champion: They are a very valid way of slowing down traffic. (several commenting) And they work, and if you're driving the speed limit you don't really know they're there. Bailey: Okay. Davidson: Any other questions for me? Bailey: No, thank you. Davidson: Thank you. Bailey: Further discussion? LeaVesseur: I'm Nancy LeaVesseur, and I wish I wrote faster for you. I'm sorry. I'm at 742 Tipperary Road, and I have, um, some petitions for you. Um... Bailey: Eleanor can take them, thanks. LeaVesseur: Um, this is a wonderful neighborhood. There's lots of kids...it's a very kid-friendly, it's um, we're a very connected group. We have ice cream socials. We get together for kite flying events. We're just a fun neighborhood. Um, we, um, in doing the surveys, going through and getting people to sign, we found that a lot of people had no idea that this road was coming through. It was kind of a surprise. Um, the questions that they were asking us was, doesn't that go right through the bike path, in a very serene area, where you're all of a sudden you're in nature and then you come out and then it's going to cut that off. And the other thing is, where's this park that the developer promised us? You know, it's supposed to have play equipment on it. It's supposed to have this and that, and I don't know about you, but I get nervous when my kids are playing in a park that's divided by a road that's going to have high school students coming through, and thank you, Matt, I appreciate your comments about the high school students, because we had speed bumps at our high school too and we found out that if you went faster, you actually limited your impact on the car. It seemed like it was better than, you know, just going across, so I don't believe that the speed bumps are going to slow down that population, the kids that we're talking about. The other thing that we're talking about too, as you mentioned, is the high school students. You're not factoring in the junior high school population that is going to be coming through, and I don't believe that they're going to go up this route. I think they're going to come up Tipperary and then down Donegal Court and then up, um, Galway Drive, and then they're going to cross Melrose and they're going to zip down Camp Cardinal Road. And that's another road that a lot of people didn't think about the impact of was Camp Cardinal Road because we're all trying to get that direction, um, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 51 there's a lot of kids over in that population that are coming through for dance classes, karate classes. If you, you'll just have to take my word for it, but after school on Mondays, I'm picking my kids up to take them to orchestra at Northwest, and I'm driving around the area to get there, and I know it'd be a much shorter to go through my subdivision to get to there, and I'm sure every other parents thinking I can't wait for that road to come through, and you' 11 have to take my word for it that I've had several conversations with neighbors and friends that live over there, that can't wait for that to come through, so that they can come through. I feel like we're trying to take this traffic, similar to like draining the Iowa River with a garden hose, through a small little suction, and trying to get it through. The other thing that I'm very concerned about is we just heard from the group that was here before that Melrose Avenue is going to be overcrowded with traffic, um, by the year, the figures that she showed me was by the year 2035, Melrose Avenue is going to be over capacity, and if you're going to stick more traffic through there -already we're... we're flirting with the numbers there. You're going to be sending more traffic through to Melrose, and then through to them, because a lot of these folks, there's a professional environment over there. There's doctors over there. There's professors over there, and they're all going to be going down Melrose and through. This is going to be shorter for them. And you're adding to another traffic problem for another community. Um, the traffic counts, we asked the, uh, Planning and Zoning Commission about the traffic counts. We were very concerned about that number. They put the traffic counter so that it was after Melrose Meadows, so that population didn't get counted in the...in the count, which I think is, you know, a problem and I think it made the numbers, it skewed the numbers so that it looked better for their case that we don't have as much traffic. Um, they also wouldn't listen to the daycare that's going to be going in there, and I can't remember the numbers. Do you know the numbers to the daycare, anyone? Depends on how big it is, but we've got a daycare that's going to be coming through and parking in that area too, so we've got parents coming in and out, and it's, you know, we've been told that it's a safety issue for us not to have an exit, another exit from our neighborhood, and you know if everyone's honest about it, if...if that was the issue, then you'd just make it an exit out of our neighborhood. It wouldn't be a gateway through Galway Hills. It would be just an exit so that we could get through, and buses could still go around if you would, you know, consider making it just an exit only. Um, that would be amazing in itself. Um the other thing is this plan was made 20-some years ago, well, I don't know about you, but 20 years ago I wasn't imagining that I would be here at this point in my life. Things change over those years. The developer really didn't want this. This is what he wanted, and he was forced into this situation. He was told that he couldn't develop this area unless he went through with this situation, and I understand there's a legal document that says that he would agree to do this, but I don't know, I've been told This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 52 that this is what he wants to do and he has the right to develop it however he sees fit, and I agree with that, but he's really being forced to do this and he really doesn't want to. Mrs. Cahill, um, contacted the Homeowner's Association, and she requested that what can we do about this situation? Is there anything you can do to help? Well, we're trying to help, but now they've gotten into a situation where they'd like to make their money and we respect that, but we'd also like you to look at this situation, that the City wants this road to go through. Instead of pushing it, look at it and see that this was a 20-year-old plan and it didn't factor in all of those houses that are on the opposite side of the interstate. And that it really doesn't make a lot of sense to take all of them through and snake them through out subdivision, when there has to be a better way to get them out. If you could take them out to the new road that's being developed, um, I think it's, um, I can't remember the name of the street. It's um, he just mentioned it. (unable to hear) Slothower? Yes, if that road were able to be developed first, this situation for us would feel a lot better, because it feels like we're cramming all of those people through us, and I've heard that they think that this little meander's going to help, but that's not going to slow a high school student down. I just...I just don't see it happening. Um, so I ask you to look at the numbers that they presented you with, and really look at them and realize that Melrose Meadows wasn't included, and that didn't feel good. That felt like it was purposely omitted, and um, that they're also going to put a daycare in there, in addition to all the traffic that's going to be coming through. And, uh, the other thing that I, I see this situation...there's aroad, Ithink it's called Boston Way that's by the Coralville Mall, and those poor people they had their houses over there and everyone was coming streaming through their neighborhood, and Coralville had to change that access so that it was an exit only for them, because there was too much traffic going through there, and so I would just like you to look at this situation before it gets to be a problem, before we have to come up with another measure to fix it, because we already know it's going to be a problem, and everybody knows that Melrose is...is overextended as it is, and it's only going to continue to be overburdened. Um, and I think that's all. Thank you. , Bailey: Thanks, Nancy. Correia: Jeff, the daycare that people are referring to, is that that land that we rezoned off Rohret? Is that what this... Davidson: No, I think they're...we've heard, but we don't have anything official yet, but there's been discussion of a childcare center, uh, being located. It would require going through the special exception process. Uh, being located somewhere within parts 10 and 11, um... Correia: Oh, within the subdivision? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of Juue 3, 2008. #6 Page 53 Davidson: Within the subdivision, yeah, it would have to go through the Board of Adjustment for a special exception. Correia: Oh, okay. So that might not... Davidson: And we haven't received an application yet. Correia: Okay, so that's not a sure thing at this point. Davidson: Right. We've just heard speculation about it. Correia: Okay. Wright: Presumably the Board of Adjustment would take it under consideration, the traffic. Correia: Traffic, yeah. Davidson: Yeah, they consider...the special exception process, you go through many factors that effect a neighborhood. Correia: Okay, thank you. Champion: Jeff, before you sit down, tell me the average number of cars on the collector street? Davidson: Well, the threshold is 2,500. We do have some collector streets that exceed that -not very many - in Iowa City, um, and certainly the majority of them are far, far below that. Woodin: I'm Jim Woodin and I live at 3468 Killarney Road, and I'm just going to go back one slide on this if I can, because what you're really looking at is...there, there was a question a little bit ago about is there a walkway between West High and the neighborhood. This line right here pretty much is what the church provided. It's a very wide walkway that's used by all of the West High students over here. My two, in particular, were always taking that. If you'll note, if you've ever been out here, right here is the crest of the hill. Right before that sidewalk. There, and as much as West High tries to say we don't have kids parking over in this neighborhood, I'll guarantee you that there are on any given day half a dozen to a dozen kids that are parking right along where it says "Galway Hills Part 7," and right next to that walkway. So, the danger that I see of this road with people coming through here is is that there are kids that will be walking across that street with the extra traffic. There will be cars parked along here, with visibility being very poor. And it's just something This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 54 that I don't think that anybody's really thought of with all of the counts and with all of the traffic calming and things like that. It's just, it's one of those things that just doesn't seem right to me, uh, with all the other events that are going on. So, thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Further discussion? Bailey: My name is Charlotte Bailey, and I live at 6 Kearney Court. As this process has gone on, I've of course attended Planning and Zoning and made comments and asked questions there, and I've tried to learn about the process. I do continue to have concerns just with timing of when public input comes in, because I feel like, as a person who cares about how this neighborhood develops, whose...when we moved in, we're you know, knew that the park was yet to come and that the trails and the connections and those things would be, uh, something that the neighborhood could have input in and work on together, um, I was one of the folks who called the developer and said, you know, when we talked before, well, he had dropped off a copy of the map and showed me, scratched off, where the road was going through and that was not his idea and not something that he was, um, interested in doing, um, at the same time, you know, he said, Charlotte, I'm 92 years old, and you know, we do want to move forward and he said I don't believe that the City's going to work with me on this. I don't believe that pulling this from Planning and Zoning right now and backing up and saying, `Hey, we do want to meet with the neighbors and we want to meet with Parks and Rec, and we want to address these issues on the front end,' he said, I don't believe it'll go anywhere. And, that he appreciated that the rest of us still had energy for it, but ultimately, that the time to make changes and plans was before so much was invested by so many people in already deciding that this one was perfect. Or that this one was at least good enough to pass through, you know, comparison against the Comprehensive Plan and things like that, and so, part of me listened to me with his years and years of experience developing in Iowa City, and said, you know, he's pretty confident that nothing that we want to do or say now, um, makes a difference after you've already got the Planning Department's support and Planning and Zoning's recommendation of approval, and a plan in place that other areas of our neighborhood couldn't develop until he, you know, made some agreements and concessions on this piece. I'm glad that we have asix-acre park planned. I just still, because I don't do Planning and Zoning, um, I still don't believe necessarily that there isn't a way to have the park impacted differently. To have the way that the...our kids cross the street and walk over to the school to have that traffic...I understand that two curves inside 10 and 11 slows down traffic inside parts 10 and 11, but after you've come up that hill, you've got the nice straightaway there, so the questions that we asked about traffic were really about the traffic on Melrose. They were about the traffic that comes down that road. I was This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 55 interested in not only volumes, but also speeds. Um, the developer pointed out that while he's looking at these lots down in the new areas, that um, they're being designed in a way that maybe people would have access to be able to get out of their houses without having to back out, but that's not a luxury that the folks who are already in their houses on Dublin have, and so when that traffic's backed up and we can't get out because Melrose is crowded and there's something odd about the placement and timing of that traffic light at West High that just doesn't mesh with the one at Camp Cardinal, so that traffic can flow, uh, there, and I didn't...I can't pretend that I understood completely when the comment was made, um, at Planning and Zoning that they didn't think there was anything they could do with that, but I was, I did clearly understand when they said that there wasn't a plan or intent to change the way traffic is controlled at the corner of Dublin and Melrose, because again there wasn't believed to be, um, any, um, and I don't know, but I've looked at the same numbers that...that other folks have. I don't have access to the speed information, which when I looked at the traffic calming brochure, it looked like speed and volumes together were what was considered in something like that was necessary, and despite my best efforts I was not able to get that information from...from anyone, so, um, I guess the things that I want to continue to point out are that there is possibly, if we're all working together, a way to say that more than just the people who got to be involved with the Comprehensive Plan, you know, yeazs ago, um, gets to have, get to have an input, get to have a say about how this works. Um, and how it grows and how it develops, and I think that it's uncomfortable to sit as people aze saying, you know, this is going to go to the next step, this is going to go to the next step, because it's passed, you know what I mean, it's go the stamp of approval from the Planning office, and it meets with the Comprehensive Plan, and to feel like that's all there was. And so I don't know, um, if there's anything else that we can do, except ask...ask permission to have time to work with, um, Parks and Rec, to work with Plazming staff, to work with the developer, um, because I know the other part of that road, it...that connects to Shannon Drive is there and has been developed, but that doesn't mean it's the only direction that it can go, and so how it impacts the park, whether or not, um, it narrows differently, does something for safety of the pedestrians, um, I don't want to just hope that those things are going to be accessible to us in the future. I want to understand and talk about how we're going to build them in on the front end. So those aze the questions that I had. I don't know, um, if anybody's looked at what that process is like for, um, for residents, because I can imagine that a number of folks come, both to Planning and Zoning and to City Council, and say we don't like this, we don't like this, we don't like this, but is it in part due to the fact that there's, again, so much invested in why this is going to happen, and how it's already supported and it's already good enough, because it passed the Comprehensive Plan piece, without any current neighborhood input. I think we've got folks who want This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 56 to work together, and I don't think that we would oppose everything just because we like opposing things. I think that there are (laughter), seriously, I wasn't even going to come, but I, again, I was the one who talked to the developer and so, you know, rather than have somebody here say three times on what we talked about, and I was the one who approached, you know, and asked for the traffic information in terms of speeds and things and just didn't get it, so I decided to come and speak for myself, and say that, um, I still think those things need to be considered, uh, even if this is, this little piece of the plan, is, um, a big part of what Iowa City needs to do in terms of flowing traffic. I just, I can't make the recommendation by myself, I don't want to. I want to...to just bank up a little bit and ask for more information, and if all we can ask for is information on the, uh, speeds, and then be told speed bumps help speed, that's one way to look at it, but I don't know some of the other options, but again, the things that were mentioned like narrowing roads, adding in trees, um, I even threw out something about you know I don't know why but it looks like in certain areas people are adding, you know, little brick sections where folks...where pedestrians cross. Does that help? Does it make it more visible? Does it slow anything down? I don't know, um, but it just feels painful for the time for it to be asked, to be, you know, maybe too late, so I'm hopeful that it's not. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you, Chazlotte. Further discussion? LeaVesseur: (unable to hear) Bailey: Quick, Jay, promise me quick. LeaVesseur: I don't know how to use this mouse, but I guess my concern...oops...hit the wrong button. Okay, thank you. Can we go back...back to the slide? Thank you very much for your help. Okay. There's the trailhead right there. This is the desirable area, the only desirable area of green space in this entire subdivision. The only reason there aren't any houses right here is because it's below grade and they would be flooding. Okay, so, you know, we're driving the road right through the connector part. I have a very selfish interest. I live right here on this speedway. This is a very nice long straight shot, just being a quick anecdotal guy, I'm guessing they're about 40 miles per hour right about the time you hit the peak of that hill. Bus stop for kids there, bus stop for kids there, we are talking about not only people coming up here and hitting this crest, we're talking about people coming up here to get over to Camp Cardinal, over here, as well. My suggestion when I was talking in the email was I think you need to make this a much less sexier alternative than it is right now. This is where you need to start putting in some traffic calming, besides the speed bumps, but make this thing have a couple more turns in it, throw in the boulevards, you know, you need to do something to make this be a less This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 57 desirable alternative, and the fact that once I get here, I look and see how fast can I go up that way, or how fast can I get up that way, and I'm requesting that we have the developer, you know, have a, put a greater sense of responsibility on the developer. I'm talking about doing something about the entryway into that section, uh, because I think that's where you have the opportunity, and plus I think you can retain the green space and the trailhead feel of it. Uh, you know, as it's going to be right now, you're really going to destroy the entry into that area, and I agree that, yes, Benton does drive through and Sunset does...does drive through the trail, as well, but this is where you've got people specifically walking in, and I would argue that neither of those places are directly attached to a high school, uh, where you have it going through, and plus there's stop lights and, you know, there's very, there's a lot of traffic regulation where those things happen, and that's not...that's not what's in position here. So, LeaVesseurs are done objecting. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you, Jay. Jeff, how did we come up with that alignment? Davidson: ...and Shannon Drive? Bailey: The one that goes to the park (coughing, difficult to hear) Davidson: Yes, that's Shannon Drive. Bailey: Thanks. Davidson: IJh, this one here. Bailey: Why isn't it over? Davidson: Uh, it was initially constmcted, I think Bob took the slide out that showed, uh, the subdivision directly to the south. That subdivision was constmcted, uh, first, and...and without that plat up here, there could very well be some...some feature that it ended up terminating where it did. Obviously what we're trying to do with this piece, which is the last part of this subdivision, is match that alignment of the adjacent subdivision, and of course we do that all over town - in every subdivision you see the end of road barricades where the next subdivision over is going to tie in, and that basically, the first one establishes where the second one is going to tie in. Bailey: Okay. Correia: So, Jeff, would there be any benefit to putting in something like, um, those traffic circles that are on College Street, that narrow just at... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 58 Davidson: Yeah, that's...those, uh, were put in through the traffic calming program. I mean, that was an example that wasn't speed humps that... Correia: Right. Davidson: ...was appropriate for those locations, yeah. Correia: But is that something that could be put in proactively to address some of the concerns of the neighbors... Davidson: They can be. Kennedy Parkway in Cardinal Pointe subdivision, we've just had those installed. Correia: The hump. Davidson: Yeah, and that was something the subdivider and the City agreed to because Kennedy Parkway is kind of a straight shot. Correia: They did that proactively... Davidson: They did that at the time the subdivision was built. Correia: Okay. Well, can... Davidson: What we're talking about here is something that would be, when we go through the traffic calming program as a neighborhood, if we got to that point with the Galway neighborhood, uh, we kind of let the neighborhood say what...what ideas they're interested in. It could be traffic circle, or it... Correia: Okay, so traffic circle, but it sounds like what they're asking is that something be put in place now, while we're doing this plat. Davidson: Right, and that would require an amendment to the plat, because it's not called for currently. Correia: But we could do that? Davidson: Amending the plat, Eleanor? Dilkes: Okay, here's what I think your options are. Um, you're not in a position to deny this plat. It complies with, um, our Comprehensive Plan, our Zoning Code, and our Subdivision Regulations. You are within the 60- day approval period, so that you, the Council must approve or deny by June 23rd I think is what the staff report says, so you could defer it, if you This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 59 chose to, and ask staff to look at the street design on, you know, so...that, you know... Correia: (several talking) What'd you say? Champion: ...objections to doing that. To look at, I mean, I'm...I don't know when this whole thing was platted, I don't really caze, but to put a road through a park really doesn't seem logical to me, or at least not to protect it somehow. Um... Dilkes: Because...basicallytyhat you're talking here, as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff, are requirements that, um, the City has imposed with respect to the street. Davidson: They were, in the other example, they were negotiated with the developer. Dilkes: But on this plat. Davidson: On this plat, yeah, we negotiated this design, with the developer, you know, initially had something that was much more of a straight shot. We said that was not acceptable, and negotiated this design. Dilkes: If there are design changes that you would like staff to attempt to, to look at, and talk to the developer about, you can defer it...until June 17`h. Davidson: And please be specific as to what you would like us to try and negotiate and (mumbled) Correia: Well, I mean, based on what I've heard in trying to...I'm not sure, I've driven through the neighborhood. I don't live on this side of town, um, I did grow up in a subdivision, not in Iowa City, that I lived on a dead-end street that eventually went through. There was a field, I mean, it was just part of, you move into a subdivision knowing that at some point it's going to continue to develop because that's part of it, so I mean, I'm sensitive, but I also understand that that's part of the experience of living in a subdivision, um, but I would like to see if there aze ways to address the concerns at the outset, if we did something like a traffic circle at that intersection, or at that point of coming from one subdivision into the next, where you have the park, there's a traffic circle that looks nice, that slows people down, makes them think this is a park, that buses can still get through. We have buses that go down College Street so I know we can maneuver traffic circles in our vehicles, um, why don't we just get it there at the get-go, um... Bailey: Are there others who are interested in deferring this to look at some design issues, such as a traffic circle (several responding) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 60 Dilkes: Well, I think we should distinguish between traffic calming measures that the City can take without changing the plat, and design of the...design of the street, that will change the construction, um, plans and the plat, and I don't know enough about design to know where one... Correia: So, could we...could we, do we have the option of approving this plat the way it is, and at the same time, in a separate avenue, um, the City decides we're going to implement this traffic calming measure, um, when the street goes in -not have it be part of the plat, but have it be part of the City's doing this with this street. Davidson: Yeah, and I'm going to make the same distinction that Eleanor just did, in that, uh, with the width of this street as proposed, you're not going, and it's a collector street standard, you're not going to get traffic circles like we have on Kennedy Parkway, because those have been specifically designed for the street, the street widened out in that area to give... Correia: I understand those. Davidson: ...sort of, almost kind of amini-roundabout sort of and I think there's two of them. What we would have here is something more similar to, um, for example, we have amid-block traffic circle on College Street, between Muscatine and...and something like that. Correia: That's what I was thinking (several responding) Davidson: ...the City could go in and attempt to retrofit that. Now, we're talking about a narrower street here. So I'm not sure we're going to end up with something that elaborate, but you basically take on-street parking off, and you set the thing in the middle to... Bailey: Can we defer this, and have you look at that option? I would be interested in some proactive traffic calming, not to set a precedent for our subdivisions, but because simply this road goes through a park. And I think that that...it's in the City's best interest to make some considerations about traffic calming that's proactive on a new street that goes through a park. Could we do that? Dilkes: By...I think the width of the street is a good example. If the width of the street is going to change, the plat and the construction drawings are going to have to change. Champion: They don't have to change. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 61 Dilkes: I know, I'm saying if you defer it you preserve both options. Our basic traffic calming where we just put stuff on and things that are going to need to change the design of the street. So if you want both those options looked at, you got to defer it. Davidson: You don't...for the one I just described, us adding something later, if it's possible to do so, you don't have to defer to do that. Bailey: I want to add something now. So it sounds like we have to defer...if others are interested. (several responding) Right, L..I'm interested in being proactive. O'Donnell: (several talking) But this is a negotiated alignment street-wise, with the developer. Davidson: That is correct. O'Donnell: And it lines up with the previous section. Davidson: Yes. Bailey: Okay. Davidson: Both ends of the previous. In fact, three different places. O'Donnell: I don't...I don't see why we would defer when we can add this at a later date. Bailey: We don't even have a motion on the floor to defer so, I mean. Champion: I'm going to move to defer. Bailey: Moved by Champion to defer to June 17th. Um, let us continue this. I think it's getting rather late. I appreciate...but, you're welcome to...the chances are that this will continue. Do we have a second for the deferral? Okay, the motion to defer dies for lack of second. Correia: I wanted a clarification. When we're talking about, um, put this in later, I think the later could be...our later is when the road goes in. We just don't have it attached to the platting. Is that... O'Donnell: But that's our option. We can do that any time that we choose. Correia: But I would want to do it, right, I would want to do it right at the time that the street opens, so we either decide we do that at the time that the street opens... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 62 Dilkes: The problem is, you don't know what it is you want to do. And if what you want to do effects the configuration of the street in the plat, then we have to defer it to make that determination. Correia: Okay. Dilkes: If what you want to do is not going to effect the configuration of the street on the plat, you need not defer it, but the problem is you don't know what you want to do, to the street, is the way I see it. Hayek: I...essentially to reiterate, if we're talking about stop signs or speed humps or yield signs, none of which are dependent upon the width of the street and configuration of intersections, we can proceed and add those later. If we're talking about things that change the bandwidth of street, um, like turnarounds and those things, then we have another issue on our hands. Wilburn: I'm going to remake Connie's motion to defer, if she'll second it. Champion: I']l second... Correia: I was going to second it (laughter). Bailey: Okay, moved by Wilburn to defer to June 17`", seconded by Champion. Okay. Wilburn: Reason I make that is give us time to make a thorough analysis and presentation by staff, so that we can make an informed decision. Davidson: And you, Madame Mayor, can you specifically say what it is you'd like staff to bring back on the 17`h? Bailey: What I... Correia: Options for traffic calming. Bailey: What I hear, um, are options for... Davidson: Options for additional traffic calming on this portion of Shannon Drive, is that... Bailey: I can speak for myself. I can't necessarily speak for my colleagues. What I'm interested in seeing are traffic calming measures in the park, or as the street goes through the park. Davidson: In this vicinity. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Correia: Champion: Bailey: Davidson: Bailey Yes, that's what I'm interested in. Me too. Okay. I guess I did speak for my colleagues. Page 63 And we will bring back on the 17`h what is possible, with the existing configuration of the street. Yes, please. Okay, thank you. Wilburn: And I would add, I...I would add that I think that as part of the discussion whether to defer or not, in that additional direction, I think that the alternative alignment that's put in would be effective, but again, just to preserve that option. Hayek: What do you mean, the alternative alignment? Wilburn: The curvature, the circuitous...yes, yes, that perhaps plus some...that alignment plus perhaps some additional traffic calming devices. Bailey: So we're interested in a traffic circle, and if you have other ideas (several talking) Dilkes: Which may include... Bailey: Which may include... Dilkes: ...the configuration of the street. Bailey: Right. Davidson: We'll tell you what's possible with the existing plat, and what you would have to modify in order (mumbled) that. Bailey: Thank you. Dilkes: But we have to know by the 17`h, because our 60 day period will run. So if the plats going to change, it has to happen by the 17`h. Bailey: Okay. Hayek: And, Jeff, I wouldn't limit it to the park area. To save all of us a headache later, I suspect there will be questions about the area north of this, uh, natural azea, where you are...you might as well look at the entire azea. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #6 Page 64 Davidson: Obviously these streets are already platted and been accepted by the City. These are our streets already. (several talking) These are the ones that are under consideration to modify, because... Bailey: Those streets would need to be retrofitted with traffic calming... Hayek: No, I'm just saying don't limit yourself to the southern end of Parts 10 and 11; do all of 10 and 11 as they pertain to that collector street. Because I know questions will come up about that part if you only focus on the bottom part. Murphy's Law! Bailey: Okay. Uh, roll call, or... Karr: ...motion to defer to the 17`h Bailey: ...all those in favor say aye. Those opposed same sign. Motion cames...6-1, O'Donnell voting against the deferral. And we'll have an opportunity to speak and discuss this further on the 17`h (male): So that means I can't speak? Bailey: On the 17`h you can. (male): Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #7 Page 65 ITEM 7 AMENDING TITLE 16, PUBLIC WORKS, CHAPTER 3A, CITY UTILITIES -GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 6, BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES; DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS, TO ELIMINATE THE DELINQUENCY CHARGE FOR ALL STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. a) PUBLIC HEARING Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open. Lombardo: Madame Mayor, I would ask that you defer this. I have some questions with staff and some things to work through as to whether or not we need to proceed in this. Bailey: Are you asking that we continue the public hearing...to June 17`h~ Lombardo: June 17`h, yes. b) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Champion: Move to defer, or to continue, the public hearing. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell to continue the public hearing to June 17`h. All those in favor of continuing the public hearing say aye. Those opposed same sign. I need a motion to... Wilburn: Move to defer the ordinance until then., Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. Wright: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Wright. Discussion? All those in favor of deferring the first consideration say aye. Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. We are going to have quite a meeting on the 17"'. (laughter and several talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #8 Page 66 ITEM 8 AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD, PHASE 2A, IN IOWA CITY, IOWA, TO PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. a) PUBLIC HEARING Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is closed. b) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION O'Donnell: Move the resolution. Champion: Second. Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Correia: Um, this resolution includes the sale of this land, so the proceeds will be coming to the City, that, uh back into the City with no restrictions of $270... Bailey: Amy, would you please speak up? Correia: Oh, sorry. Um, and as I had mentioned in the last meeting in our work session, I'm interested in, um, moving the proceeds, or a portion of the proceeds of the sale, into the Affordable Housing Trust Account that we had created previously, um, when we were looking ahead to, when we had the results of the market analysis, um, we have, um, many recommendations, including those that include increasing financing, um, opportunities for affordable housing, um, we know that we have a need for over 600 rental, and um, a reduced amount of that - I don't have the number - ofowner-occupied for folks at lower incomes. We have very tight vacancy rates. We also have employment data, um, that...to...showing us that about over half, about 57%, of employees work in retail and service sector provisions making poverty wages, so we have compelling need, um, for this program, and I know we've talked, um, to respond to in additional ways to the needs. So this gives us when we soon begin to talk about our responses, the ability to have set aside dollars, um, many communities have such affordable housing trust accounts, um, so...I would propose that we would move this money into that...that we have previously established. Karr: Is that a motion? Correia: Motion to...yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #8 Wilburn: I will second that. Page 67 Bailey: Moved by Correia, seconded by Wright...and Wilburn, I guess, um, to uh, sequester the $270,000 from the sale of these properties, um, to...what are we calling this? Correia: Well, I think when we established it, Steve Atkins had called it the Affordable Housing Trust Account. Bailey: Our Affordable Housing Trust Account. Champion: Well, I think this Council agreed at the last budget session to overspend what we're having...what we have coming in. We decide to hire Firemen and policemen, which I'm not saying was the wrong thing to do, but since we're spending more than we're bringing in, I tend not...with any kind of rationality say this money should go somewhere else. I look at this money and I see firemen, and I think that's where it should go. Wilburn: I would look at, uh, this in a similar vein to the economic development funds that we, uh, set aside in reserved, uh, so I would look at it in a similaz vein to retain that, um, and if need be, our pressure comes in a similaz vein, I believe we reduced an amount going into the economic development fund, we could reduce the amount or divert it back to the General Fund. Um, if need be. Hayek: Um, I would not support that motion. We have a number of pressing budget needs that staff have identified, a concern about a declining General Fund balance, this comes outside of our budgeting process, which is the time when we can actually plan, uh, for revenues and expenditures, and we have not yet discussed the affordable housing mazket study, and steps the City wants to take to, uh, address that, um, so for all those reasons I'm not going to support this. O'Donnell: L ..I agree. I'm also not going to support it. Um, we're committed to more police and fire protection and uh, this $270,000 in my mind should go the General Fund. Wright: I am going to support this. Um, we have a pretty good (mumbled) for how we've chosen to (mumbled). This would get us, um, a cushion, a starting point, to look at that (mumbled) for affordable housing, perhaps in the form of ownership, perhaps in the form of incentives for the rentals that we very badly need. Um, I think it's...we're getting this money from housing. I would like to see it go to housing. Bailey: I'm not going to support this, um, at this time. It's not to say that I don't believe that at some point we will be called upon to, uh, support our This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #g Page 68 affordable housing initiatives. We have a clear blueprint of what is needed. We haven't decided who's going to be responsible and how it's going to be paid for. Um, so I'm uncomfortable encumbering these dollars at this time, um, so...al] right. Roll call on the... Karr: Motion... Bailey: Oh, sorry! I keep doing that tonight. All those in favor of putting this $270,000 into this Affordable Housing Trust Fund say aye. All those opposed same sign. Okay, um, motion, or the amendment is defeated with, uh, 3 of the 4. Um, further discussion on the resolution? Okay. Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #10 ITEM 10 Bailey: ASSESSING A $300.00 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST CVS, PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE SECTION 453A.22(2) (2007) a) CONDUCT HEARING Page 69 This is a hearing. Andy will present, um, the position of the County. Chappell: I've prepared a 15-minute discussion (laughter) because I thought it'd be good to catch you up on this (several talking), but actually all we really need to know, uh, for the first one is that an employee of CVC Drug sold cigarettes to a minor on March 17, 2008. That's the first such violation by an employee of CVS, pursuant to Iowa Code Section 453A.22, that means that City Council should assess a civil penalty in the amount of $300.00 against CVS. Bailey: Do we have anybody from CVS here to speak to this? Champion: They all went home. Bailey: Okay. We'll close the hearing. (bangs gavel) b) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION O'Donnell: Move the resolution. Correia: Second. Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Correia. Discussion? Wilburn: Shall isn't it, not should? We shall? Bailey: Okay. Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #11 Page 70 ITEM 11 ASSESSING A $300.00 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST K-MART, PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE SECTION 453A.22(2) (2007) a) CONDUCT HEARING Bailey: This is a hearing. (bangs gavel) Hearing is open. Chappell: K-Mart, an employee of K-Mart sold cigarettes to a minor on March 10, 2008. This is a first such violation by one of their employees in a two- yearperiod. They had one several years ago, but it doesn't count under the statute. Uh, pursuant to the same Code Section, the City Council...I say "should" because only your lawyer can tell you what you have to do, um, should assess a civil penalty in the amount of $300.00. Bailey: Okay. Is there anyone from K-Mart here to speak to this? Hearing is closed. (bangs gavel) b) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution. Hayek: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Hayek. Discussion? Wilburn: I like to point out shall because in the event that it ends up in some type of further proceedings that we did it based on what the law says. Bailey: Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #12 Page 71 ITEM 12 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DIRECTING SALE OF $9,150,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2008A. Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? I see Kevin is here. Thanks for hanging in, or being here. O'Malley: Madame Mayor, Esteemed Council, we had some good bids today. We had, uh, four competitive bids. I think it's the closest bids we've ever had as far as the best...I think there were two-tenths of one basis point difference. We had a lot of interest in our bids. We had four bidders, representing 13 syndicates throughout the United States, and uh, our bid came in at 3.49, which is 25 basis points better than last year, and by the way, we retained our AAA-rating. Champion: Thank you! (several responding) Bailey: Okay, further discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #13 Page 72 ITEM 13 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE FIRST ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH HIERONYMI PARTNERSHIP L.L.P. FOR THE LEASE OF APPROXIMATELY 760 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE LOCATED WITHIN THE COURT STREET TRANSPORTATION CENTER. Wilburn: Move the resolution. Champion: Move the resolution. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Wright: Just a quick question. Is this typical rent for the area? Correia: Is it market rent, is that the question? Dilkes: I think it's market rent. Bailey: Okay, further discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #14 Page 73 ITEM 14 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, LANDOWNER, THREE GUYS HOLDING LLP, AND TENANT CORNER OF THE MEADOW, INC. D/B/A MOTLEY COW CAFE, FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE. Wright: Move the resolution. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wright, seconded by O'Donnell. Hayek: Madame Mayor, I'm going to step out or stand at this point. I represent this applicant, as well I don't think there's a legal conflict, but I don't feel comfortable voting on this. Bailey: Okay. Thank you. Hayek: If there's further discussion, I'll remove myself from the room. Bailey: Discussion? Roll call. Item carries 6-0, Hayek abstaining due to conflict of interest. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #15 Page 74 ITEM 15 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, LANDOWNER PRODIGY ENTERPRISES L.L.C., AND TENANT CAFFREY, INC. D/B/A DC'S, FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE. O'Donnell: Move the resolution. Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell. Wright: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Wright. Discussion? Correia: I'm not going to support this at this time. I'm...when I walk by this business, it feels like a bar to me, not like a restaurant, and so until I feel, I mean, I don't know how others feel, so I'll be not supporting this. O'Donnell: I walked by also, and it felt like a bar that served food. Bailey: Isn't that a restaurant? (laughter) O'Donnell: I think so. Wright: I'm not going to support it for a different reason, which is that that is a part of the pedestrian mall that particularly on our concert nights, is so heavily populated with traffic, and people coming and going, um, I don't think that particular spot is a very appropriate use. Bailey: Okay. Further discussion? Champion: In our ordinance about sidewalk cafes, um, do you...if somebody doesn't order food, can you just sit out there and drink? Karr: You are not required to order food in the establishment. The establishment must be available for you to order food. Champion: I just wondered - I couldn't remember. O'Donnell: And when the restaurant closes, the sidewalk cafe also... Karr: No, when the kitchen closes, the sidewalk cafe must close, but the establishment inside (mumbled) O'Donnell: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #15 Dilkes: Champion: Bailey: Karr: Champion: Bailey: And there are tables in the sidewalk cafe area. Page 75 I'm going to support it, for the same reason because I'm not really sure, but we have to renew it every year, so we'll just see what happens. (mumbled) It was in the handouts tonight, if you wanted to see the diagram. You requested that last night. I know. Thank you for providing it. Wilburn: I'm just looking, excuse me, Madame Mayor, I'm just looking at the issue that Mike brought up about the distance and the space, and the pathway, given some of the, uh, entertainment, music, that type of thing. (mumbled) Bailey: Sure. Hayek: In the meantime, let me ask, is...is there any indication that any of the criteria we require you to meet, uh, in terms of volume, in terms of the... Karr: We require an eight-foot walkway, which they have maintained. Correia: In terms of determining that the restaurant, they submit a menu? They submit hours of operation? There's no volume, there's no... Karr: It's a new establishment. They couldn't indicate what volume, until it were open a period of time. Wilburn: Well, any of the, um, well, any of the, um, carts, the vendor carts, food carts, impinge on that eight-foot radius? I'm trying to remember which carts... Karr: No, they're in a different area of the plaza. Wilburn: All right. That's my thinking. Bailey: Further discussion or questions, clarifications? Okay, roll call. Okay, item carries 5-2, Wright and Correia in the, voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #18 Page 76 ITEM 18 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE 2008 DUBUQUE/CHURCH STREET RADIUS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Bailey: Looks like the engineer's estimate was $319,252, and the bid from All American Concrete came in at $282,039.20. Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #21 Page 77 ITEM 21 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO THE ADOPTION OF THE EAST CENTRAL IOWA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT'S UPDATED REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 2008- 2014. Champion: Move the resolution. Correia: Second. Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by Correia. Discussion? Correia: This is an exciting plan, even though it has a very unexciting name. Bailey: It is. (several responding) Correia: ...improve recycling and composting, and education about such things, uh, we'll be starting to talk more about multi-family recycling, which we've wanted to (mumbled) Bailey: And people can view the plan...there's a link to it at our web site, under the Landfill link. So, further discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008. #25 Page 78 ITEM 25 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Bailey: Let's start with Council Member Wright. Wright: Well, this weekend is the Arts Fest, beginning of the Summer of the Arts. All kinds of good stuff to do, and it literally is for, uh, for everybody in the family. Lots of good kids' activities in the, uh, Global Village, uh, (mumbled) pancake breakfast Sunday morning, starting at I believe 8:00 A.M. Bailey: That's when I start my volunteer shift, so... Wright: I start flipping pancakes at 11:00. Bailey: Okay. Connie? Wright: Supposed to be 85 degrees. Champion: Nothing (mumbled). Bailey: We'll make sure that happens. Mike? O'Donnell: Nothing this evening. Bailey: Council Member Wilburn? Wilburn: Nope. Hayek: Not this evening. Correia: Welcome, Michael, to your first City Council meeting. Glad to have you aboard, and congratulations also to Oral-B, 50 years in Iowa City. They're having a celebration of this next Thursday, June 12`h. Bailey: Thanks, um, I want to say greatjob on Irving Weber Days. The ice cream social, I know many of us attended, so congratulations to the Johnson County Historical Society for a nice event. We've already heard about the ICARE breakfast. I also wanted to note the passing of Ron Prosser who, um, worked at our Library and was a familiar face around town, and he will be sorely missed in our community. So, City Manager, I'd also like to welcome you. If this is any indication of what meetings with you are like, I'm a little concerned. (laughter) But, uh, you know, maybe we can improve upon that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of June 3, 2008.