Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-24 Transcription#2 Page 1 ITEM 2 PROCLAMATIONS. a) Public Library Friends Foundation Bailey: Item 2 is a presentation from the Public Library Friends Foundation. Hennessy Good evening. Uh, Mayor Bailey, Members of City Council, uh, my name is Colin Hennessy and I'm here on behalf of the Iowa City Public Library Friends Foundation Board of Directors. It is a pleasure to be back here again, this year, to present you with this check for $100,000. Uh, this is our ninth payment towards our commitment of $1 million towards the expansion and renovation of the Iowa City Public Library. We'll be back last...uh, next year to present that final payment. So, thank you very much on behalf of all of us at the Public Library for your continued support of everything that we do at the Iowa City Public Library. Bailey: Thanks, Colin. (applause) I think I'll pass this down to (mumbled) Wright: Do I have to pass it.. . Bailey: Yes, you have to pass it! (laughter) Karr: Thank you! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #3 Page 2 ITEM 3 COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). Bailey: This is a time for, uh, members of the audience to comment on items that are not on tonight's agenda. If you'd like to make a comment, please approach the podium, state your name, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Gustaveson: Good evening. I'm Craig Gustaveson. I'm President of the Downtown Association. Um, obviously with all the devastation that's happened to our community over the last few weeks with the floods and everything, uh, a lot of businesses are no longer in existence, and our heart goes out to them. There are a lot of us in the downtown that were fortunate enough not to be devastated by the floods, but we are victims in another way in that, uh, a lot of businesses have seen their business drop off between 30- 40%. I even talked with one business that said their business is off by 90% over last year. So we were kind of unintended victims of the flood. In trying to generate some interest in coming back downtown, we found out a lot of people thought the curfew meant all of downtown, uh, so they were not coming downtown to eat in the evenings or going to the theatres or different things. Uh, and just some of the difficulty with the roads and everything to get downtown, so we've been trying to do our own economic stimulus package downtown by going on radio, uh, doing some ads, uh, Kevin O'Brien from McDonald's has been gracious enough to, even though he doesn't have a place downtown, running some ads saying, you know, come down and support your local businesses. One of the things we'd like to have the City Council help us with is on our sidewalk sales ordinance. Currently there...we can have two sidewalk sales per year. There is a provision that from May through September we can have businesses open from 5:00 to 9:00 on Fridays during that time, and we're asking the City Council if we can amend that Friday night going from, rather than 5:00 to 9:00, but going from 9:00 to 9:00 so that we can be on the sidewalks on Fridays, and we're just trying to...anything we can do to generate some interest in downtown. LTh, so we'd like to have you have that for your consideration, um, so we can get, you know, some more interest downtown, we can get people shopping with us, and kind of getting our downtown back to normal. So we'd like to have you consider that, and uh, hopefully we can expedite that since it is an amendment to the ordinance, rather than a new ordinance. Bailey: Thanks, Craig. Gustaveson: Thank you. Bailey: Is there interest in having this on our July 15t" meeting, uh, an amendment to this ordinance? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #3 O'Donnell: Sure. Wright: Yeah. Definitely. Page 3 Hayek: Could we take it up to next week? Uh, we've got a couple of meetings scheduled then. Bailey: We could do it at our formal next week, couldn't we? I mean...okay. So, we'll just direct staff to take care of that and see it as soon as we can. Other people for community comment? Karr: Is there a motion to accept correspondence from Mr. Gustaveson? Hayek: So moved. Correia: Second. Bailey: Moved by Hayek, seconded by Correia. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. Meyer: Good evening. My name is Fred Meyer. I am here representing two environmental organizations, and Backyard Abundance, and we would like to help with the flood cleanup. We have a lot of passionate people who would like to help out, and we have done a lot of research on non-toxic ways to remediate mold in lawns and things like that, but we're not exactly sure how to proceed, how to work with the City in doing this, and so we're looking for some guidance of some sort on how we should (mumbled). I didn't know if I needed to talk with a specific person or if we needed to be added to the next agenda item or what the next steps might be. Bailey: Who is the best person for him to contact, Michael? Lombardo: Do you have contact information you can leave with me? Meyer: Sure. Lombardo: Um, if you do that after the meeting, or if you want to just leave it with me, um, we can contact you and just get you set up with, um, with our call center. Correia: And I would also encourage you to contact the United Way Volunteer Action Center, which (mumbled) okay. Wright: They'd be a really good resource, just to help spread that information. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #3 Meyer: Thanks. Bailey: Thank you. Hayek: Thanks for the offer. Bailey: Other people for community comment? Okay. Page 4 This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 5 ITEM 4 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. a) AMENDING TITLE 15, LAND SUBDIVISIONS, BY REPEALING TITLE 15 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW TITLE 15, LAND SUBDIVISIONS. 1. PUBLIC HEARING (CONT'D FROM 6/17) Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) The public hearing is open. Davidson: Good evening Madame Mayor, Members of the City Council. We're very pleased this evening to bring the proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations, uh, to you for consideration in a public hearing this evening. Uh, the subdivision regulations are intended to reflect community values and implement the broad vision of the Comprehensive Plan. It's pretty easy to get bogged down in some of the subtleties and nuances of it, but, uh, very important set of regulations in that it really determines what our community is going to look like, and how the private sector part of it and the public sector part of it are going to interact. Um, the larger planning process consists of the broad vision of the Comprehensive Plan. That's where we articulate our...our broad goals for the...the City. The zoning ordinance is then used to implement the Comprehensive Plan by things like calling out permitted uses, uh, density of development, heights, setback, open space -those sorts of things. And then the subdivision regulations, which is what you are considering this evening, uh, is kind of the final piece of that, and that has to do with how land is divided into building lots, and then how the public sector, the streets, the parks and open space and those sorts of things are configured with that. Uh, there are four, uh, principle changes for broad areas that I'd like to highlight very briefly before you have, uh, a short presentation. Um, we have obviously tried to reflect the Comprehensive Plan goals, and we've done that specifically by emphasizing some things which have not been emphasized in the current subdivision regulations. Those include street connectivity standards, a wider variety of street types, reduction in local street pavement width requirements, updates to right-of--way widths, uh, to better accommodate street trees and utilities, and improvements to better accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. We've also tried to clarify definitions, purpose statements, and standards to make the code easier, uh, to use -not as daunting, uh, for somebody to use. Uh, we've tried to clarify submittal requirements and approval procedures to streamline the process, for both the City and the developers, and I think that's something that both sides can...can have a better idea, a more clearly defined idea of what that process is, through the changes that we are proposing. And then we have a number of practices that have sort of, uh, become standard practice, uh, such as our secondary access requirements, and we've tried to codify those in the regulations, uh, and...and you'll have those touched on in the, uh, presentation here shortly. So, um, I...I won't belabor the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 6 process that we've gone through. It has been a very long, drawn out process where we have tried to get as much input as possible from every possible, uh, source that we can, uh, and we have tried to take that and synthesize those ideas into what we feel is a document that reflects the values of this community, and as some of you have heard me say already, there are people who feel like we have gone too far, and there are people that feel like we have not gone far enough, and we want to answer any questions you have this evening, and we want to, uh, basically have you indicate to us, uh, if you feel like this does reflect the community values, or if you would like us to go, uh, one direction or the other. With that, I'm going to introduce, uh, Associate...uh, Associate Planner Karen Howard, which will take you through a brief slide show of, uh, the proposed regulations before you. Howard: Uh, good evening. Uh, I was asked to give this presentation, not only for the Council, but for the public that's watching, uh, because a lot of people don't understand really what a subdivision code is, and...and why we're doing this process. Um, as Jeff explained, there are a lot of reasons that, um, we went about this project to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to clarify the language in our code and make it up- to-date, and to clarify the procedures and make sure that we are putting those things in our regulations that, um, we're currently practicing, um, in good planning for the community. LTh, what exactly is a subdivision? It is a division of parcels of land into three or more legal lots, and this is a picture of, uh, what a subdivision plat looks like when it comes into the City. It's a graphical representation of lot lines, streets, sewer lines, water mains -all the things that go into building a neighborhood. Uh, the purpose of a subdivision code is to encourage orderly growth in the community. Uh, that is where it's cost effective to extend our public services and infrastructure, and to regulate the extension of that infrastructure, um, making sure that those water lines, sewer lines, those public infrastructure systems are, uh, done correctly, uh, so that over time it is cost effective to the City and to the taxpayers. And also to implement all of those policy goals we've adopted in our Comprehensive Plan. And I want to go into, uh, a little bit of detail about, uh, what happens if...if you have poorly designed subdivisions and how our Comprehensive Plan relates to those policies. If you have poorly designed subdivisions, it really increases the cost of living for the residents of a city, uh, increases the long-term costs to the city and to the taxpayers. It does reduce economic development potential and can jeopardize public safety. So it's very important for the community to have a good subdivision regulation, uh, on the books. Uh, some of the policies in our Comprehensive Plan that relate specifically to subdivision code regulations, we call for interconnected streets. That is we mean, uh, streets that provide lot of connections through the community, provide more direct routes, which will reduce vehicle miles traveled, encourage walking and bicycling, and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 7 allow efficient provision of public and emergency services. The City Council fairly recently adopted a Streets Policy, and what we mean by that is to design the streets to accommodate all modes of transportation, including bikes, cars, uh, pedestrians, buses, um, and that, uh, those kind of policies can be implemented by good policies in our subdivision regulations. The environmental goals in the Comprehensive Plan, uh, preservation of environmentally sensitive features, uh, slopes, flood plains, uh, wooded areas, uh, and also the use of best practices with regard to storm water management and soil erosion. In regard to parks and open space, the plan calls for neighborhood parks within walking distance of residences, uh, accessible open space, um, and a continuous network of trails and sidewalks. With regard to public safety goals, we want to insure good emergency access by developing a connected street circulation pattern, and to minimize emergency response times. And so how do we implement, um, those policy goals in the Comprehensive Plan? The subdivision code plays a big role in that, uh, for example, the interconnected street policy, uh, we can implement that by having standards about block lengths, how long the blocks are, uh, streets are required to be stubbed. That means end at the subdivision boundaries so that the next property can connect into that street network. Uh, discouraging cul-de-sacs. We know that cul-de-sacs are needed in some areas where there's, uh, problems with topography and that sort of thing, but they do create disconnections in our street network, and also to codify our secondary access policy. LTh, we hired a consultant a number of years ago to analyze our subdivision regulations as compared to, um, our Comprehensive Plan, and they commented that our existing regulations contained virtually no regulations addressing street connectivity, and suggested that we adopt, if we're serious about having, uh, a connected street network that we adopt standards to do so. There are a number of hidden costs to having an unconnected street network. Uh, it discourages walking and biking, more money is spent on gas and auto maintenance, cost to provide public services are higher, it costs more to garbage pickup, snow removal, mail delivery, uh, it also increases response time for emergency services. The longer the cul-de-sac, the more that people are affected in an emergency. This is a subdivision plat. There's quite a few cul-de-sacs here, uh, people enjoy a lot of times living on a cul-de-sac because it's private, there's not much traffic, um, but you can see that it would be a long walk for a child that lived on this cul-de-sac to walk up to Horn School. Uh, it would be, uh, a lot of folks that were affected, if there was a blockage in the road here, uh, under emergency services. Emergency situations. And you can see that by connecting some of these streets originally there would be a lot more circulation for folks wanting to get to parks and schools, and downtown. The same goes for extending those streets to the subdivision boundary. As you can see here, these loop streets were developed with no access for this property, um, when it came in for development, and by merely connecting those streets to that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 8 subdivision boundary it makes for a more logical street pattern. With regard to street standards themselves, there's a number of things that we've included in the subdivision code revisions. Uh, a wider variety of street types, there's a reduction in the required pavement width for local streets, and an increase in required right-of--way width to accommodate street trees, utilities, and bicycle facilities. And just stepping back for those not familiar with our...our basic street types, uh, we have local streets, which are low-volume, traffic volume, those are the streets that provide circulation within a neighborhood. We have collector streets that connect from those local streets into the arterial street system, and then the arterial streets provide connections across the metropolitan area, and really function to move traffic. So for our local streets, uh, the proposal is to reduce the pavement width and increase the right-of--way width. And these are some illustrations that show what we mean by that. The current standard is a 28-foot wide pavement width, uh, and we have about asix- foot wide park...what we call a parkway, that's the space between the street and the sidewalk, and afour-foot, um, public sidewalk. This whole portion of this is the street right-of--way, it's what we talk about when we talk about the public street, but in the proposed code, um, we're proposing to decrease the, uh, street width from 28-feet to 26-feet, uh, increase the sidewalk width from four to five-feet, which will leave 11 feet for those over-story street trees and more room for utilities in our street right-of- way. Uh, it was a big discussion topic, uh, at Planning and Zoning Commission, and when we were revising the code, about the benefit of street trees. All...all these people think about protection from sun, the shade, uh, absorbing pollutants, all the things that are obvious, but they also do help to increase that traffic and pedestrian safety along the street by providing a street wall and a buffer for pedestrians. Um, they increase property values, and they also studies have shown they improve business, as well. Um, one study showed a 12% higher income stream for businesses located along tree-lined streets. Uh, these benefits are obvious in some of our older neighborhoods where we have those large over-story trees, but in some of our newer neighborhoods, there's just not enough room in that parkway for those large trees, and so, um, it's hard for them to ever have those benefits. And as you can see from this, uh, photo, even at a young age, trees can provide some benefits to new neighborhoods. Uh, the problems with a narrow parkway, there was some discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission about, uh, problems fitting trees into that narrow parkway, why can't we just have a narrow parkway, um, and still plant those large over-story trees, well, these are some illustrations on what happens if you, um, do plant those large trees with not enough room. With regard to collector streets, those are the streets that connect from the locals to the arterials, we're proposing to increase the right-of--way width for some of those same reasons that we're increasing it for the local streets. Um, in this case we want to increase the right-of--way width to provide an extra wide outside lane to accommodate bicycle routes, but we This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 9 don't want to lose the ability to put street trees, so if we increase the right- of-way width from 60 to 66-feet, it will allow us to do both things - bicycles and trees. For arterial streets we also are suggesting an increase in the right-of--way width, uh, we all know what can happen along arterial streets. We need to widen the road to accommodate traffic volumes, um, it's really hard to retrofit things after the fact, not enough room for storage or street trees, um, in our city streets. With regard to pedestrian facilities, um, sidewalks and the trails, um, we want to codify our sidewalk width standards, and also provide, um, requirements for mid-block pedestrian connections to break up any long blocks, and here's an illustration of what we mean by that. For example, if there's schools and parks that make it necessary to have long blocks, we want, uh, folks in the neighborhood to be able to get to those public institutions and parks, um, easily without having to walk way out of their way. Uh, lot depth along major ar...major traffic ways has been somewhat of a problem. If...if you don't have lots that are deep enough, um, that back up to arterial streets, you get a wall of fences. People want privacy in their backyards, um, and so they build privacy fences, but it, uh, really detracts from our public streets. So what we would like to have, um, is a requirement for some...a deeper lot along those streets so there's room for landscaping, which creates privacy for those homeowners, but also a good public street right-of--way for bicycles and pedestrians. Here's a couple examples of good street systems. Regard to parks and open space - um, making sure that the lot layout in subdivision plats provide better public access to parks and open space. iJh, here's an example, uh, here's Willow Creek Park and I'm sure most folks in Iowa City know where Willow Creek Park is. They've heard of Willow Creek Park because it's one of those parks that you can see by just driving down the street, um, you know it's there, uh, there's easy access. It's very clear that it's a public park. What happens if we have, um, parks without good access, uh, that are behind homes, the people in the neighborhood sure enjoy these parks, but it's not real obvious that it's a public park, for those outside the neighborhood. And finally, um, improving our approval process, uh, we want to define what a complete application is for developers to make it very clear what they need to submit for their application, and also, uh, define and codify our current practice with regard to applications that come in with deficiencies or inaccuracies. And we want to streamline that final plat process, um, to...to help, uh, increase the rate of time that they can get through the process. This is a little flowchart and it shows the process of approving a subdivision. Goes from a concept plan stage through the preliminary plat where there's staff review, Planning and Zoning Commission reviews those, and then it's on to the City Council. With the final plat, we would like to streamline that, um, because most of the design work has been done at the preliminary plat stage. That final plat can really...is all the legal documents that can go straight from the staff to, um, the City Council. Uh, one point that was really discussed quite a bit at the Planning and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 10 Zoning Commission, and I also want to note that Ann Freerks is here from the Planning and Zoning Commission if you have questions tonight. She's the Chair of the Commission, um, she can speak to the kinds of things that, um, that were discussed. If you have questions, but one of the topics that was...had a lot of questions was, you know, how does that process work, how do we deal with incomplete applications, um, how do we deal with plats that come in with a lot of inaccuracies. And finally, I just want to reiterate what Jeff said about the review process for this project. There was a lot of input from...from a lot of different departments at the City, um, went through a lot of different revisions, and um, revisions were made based on public comments at several different stages, and we want to thank the development community for providing good comments along the way that helped to make this a better, uh, project. Any questions? Bailey: Any questions for Karen? Hayek: I might have some, but I'd like to hear from the others before I ask them. Bailey: Thanks, Karen. Okay, this is a public hearing. Other comments regarding the subdivision code? Smith: Just give me one moment to get all the papers prepared. Good evening. My name is Dan Smith. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Greater Iowa City Area Home builders Association, and if I may, I'd like to, uh, present the Council with a revised, um, analysis. I wasn't sure if you had it or not. I apologize for the extra paper, but uh, you can look at it now, or after you're finished. I'll be primarily working off of, uh, my copy of the matrix, um, one I've had for a while. It's dog-eared and marked on. I think it corresponds to the numbers you have in your packet. Uh, I will do my best to, uh, clarify if there is missing or if I'm off a certain page. I want to start off tonight first thanking Karen and Jeff and Bob for all the work that they've done, uh, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission, um, I attended, I think, every meeting they had on the subdivision ordinance, and the conversation was robust and, uh, and at times even enjoyable. Um, digging right in with some of the suggestions we have, uh, this is not going to be a line-by-line necessarily presentation, um, just more of an overview of some of our concerns and suggestions and recommendations, and the first thing I want to point out or get into is the review and approval, uh, process. We had offered the notion of a, uh, essentially a, kind of aone-and-done meeting, if you will, at the preliminary plat stage, where all parties and all departments come to the table, um, under a timeline with a response of 20 to 30 business days, all comments must be provided to the applicant after that meeting, and essentially after that is done, they get, they resubmit their application, uh, if they are again are "denied" if you will at the staff level, they have the right to go ahead to Planning and Zoning, and petition Planning and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 11 Zoning for approval. I'm not sure that's necessarily the most feasible or elegant solution to what the real problem is, and what that problem is for our members isn't necessarily once you are deemed a complete application. I think the change in here of 15.2.b.2, I think it is. I may have that number screwed up, uh, is a good one. It defines what a complete application is, and that's what we're going to tell our members is a complete application. The trick is for us is really getting to that complete application definition. As drafted here, if this is what it means...if it means what it reads, I think that's a pretty equitable solution. Pretty definitive, pretty objective. Problem in the past has been what is a complete application. That has been the most significant issue for us in the review and approval stage is getting to that magical definition of what complete means. Many of our members and you have probably sat through many arduous meetings, discussing policy matters or possibly even engineering specs. If we're talking about engineering specifications, that's in our opinion a technical issue that we can point to in a code somewhere and say we're not in compliance. If it's a policy matter, our contention has always been that that is something for Planning and Zoning to deal with. That is something for the Council to hash through. That's not something that should hold up an applicant and keep them off the Planning and Zoning agenda. So I think what is in here, under 15.2, I guess it's B.2 um, looks like a fairly objective criteria we would endorse. But I did want to make you aware of what our contention was, because that was something that was discussed quite vigorously at the Planning and Zoning level, at the Commission level. The second matter I want to bring up, and I'm going to turn to the matrix now very briefly, is the mid- blockpedestrian connection. Champion: What number is that? Smith: Um, my packet.. . Champion: It'd be the same, I hope. Smith: Should be. I believe it is...number...the 20, number 20 in my packet, page 18. 15.3.g. As a general proposition, we're not opposed to, um, I would take one issue with the staff comment section. We're not opposed to street connectivity standards. Really, much of what's in this code we're not opposed to, it's just who...what's the best delivery mechanism for it, and what's the trade off and the give and take involved. Our concern with the mid-block pedestrian connection, and it should be pointed out, I think it's a little unclear in the explanatory notes, as well in the presentation Karen gave, this isn't something that is considered a possibility if justified. This is mandatory. You have to build, you have to make amid-block pedestrian connection, any block longer than 600-feet. It's not if there's a school. It's not if it makes sense. The language of the ordinance says, let This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 12 me just turn to the correct page, page 24 of the actual ordinance, at least in my copy. In residential subdivisions, I'm quoting, blocks longer than 600 feet must have mid-block pedestrian connections between base and streets. There is an exception, it says unless a connection is deemed to be unnecessary and waived by the City. Our suggestion is, if this is going to go forward that some criteria on what that is, when it would be waived, might be, uh, advisable. So that there is some sort of objectivity and consistency in enforcement. And it also must be noted, that that will take out developable land. That will remove, both in a sidewalk construction and the right-of--way, that will take out some developable land. Champion: Dan, do you know off-hand what the, what a regular city block is, lengthwise? Smith: On average? I don't actually...in polling the members, uh, of the Homebuilders and the developers and Glenn Siders with Southgate maybe able to, you know, give his personal, uh, testimony on this. I don't think you're going to find many blocks beyond 600 feet. Um, in truth. So it may not be much of an issue; however, uh, where it is an issue it will reduce developable land, um, both due to sidewalk construction and the right-of-way...Jeff says typical is 300. Champion: Oh, okay. That's big, 600's big. Smith: Jeff s an expert. I'm not. So I'll take his word for it. Um, so like I said, it may not become an issue much, but it is required, uh, for anything over 600 feet. Third issue I'd like to bring to your attention is provisions to minimize the effective highway noise, the buffer you just heard about. Really, our position at first was to look to reduce what the buffer was, um, or consider berms and what have you, because the original intent was of course to reduce the highway noise, the effective highway noise, that's what it's called in the ordinance. And I think there's consensus among everybody involved that there really is no set standard on what any amount of space or footage that would reduce highway noise. It depends on topography of the land, um, and really what we're talking about, I think, is really a matter of comfort as opposed to public safety, per say, for residents who may live in these areas, and I'm not...I don't believe there's many residential areas, um, I know Jeff and Karen and Bob have a map. I'm not aware of very many residential areas that actually are located in this buffer area, or how many will be in the future. I think it's a pretty small handful. We simply think it's unnecessary, um, and it's really more of a comfort for people who may purchase a home there, as opposed to public health, safety, and welfare. And the last comment I have, um, is regard to sort of public infrastructure. There's a couple of areas in the...the end of the ordinance itself, sanitary sewers is what I'm looking at right now. Um, I don't know where it is in your matrix off the top of my This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 13 head. I think it's...it's really a general comment. Not considering out of sequence projects. Out of sequence projects are a little bit different because you, well, you're out of sequence, of course, but for projects that are already zoned and are ready to go forward, whenever the City may require you to build -the language that is used in here, for an example, under sanitary sewers is, and beyond as necessary. If you're requiring an applicant to build infrastructure, beyond what they need for their project, our contention is that, that's okay, but the City should be financially accountable for that. If you're going to require somebody to build something that's not to the benefit of their project, the City not "may" share in the cost, the City "shall" share in the cost, under whatever applicable statutes and ordinances are, uh, may apply. That holds true for any real public good, and I think in our original analysis we had suggested the same for section 15.3.14, offsite costs for out of sequence development, public improvements, and of course those should be treated differently, because you're asking to do something out of sequence. Um, those are my general comments. There are more comments in the packet. Um, but those are sort of the four broad areas that I did want to bring to your attention. Any questions, I may be able to answer. Like I said, uh, Glenn Siders is here with Southgate Development, um, and he has some additional comments, as well, but if there's any comments or questions, I'd be happy to answer whatever I can. Hayek: Dan, um, the...the submission from HBA that's in our packets from early April and this is dated as of today. Smith: Right. Hayek: What are the differences? Smith: I removed a couple things, and these are sort of the good things actually. Things that were clarified or...or, um, consensus on or things we really didn't want to bring up as a matter of importance, and one example would be, um, we had asked, uh, for some clarification on some words used in final plat approval. Really it wasn't a big issue for us, um, the final plat approval is one of the more significant changes that we think is...um, is very positive change and absolutely necessary, and allows an administrative review. It was, uh, there was one thing in there we wanted some clarification on, and um, really it wasn't that big of an issue for us. Another one was about, um, public open space, um, because we're by nature paranoid people, I suppose, we had asked that public open space be clarified because it wasn't a really going into the mind of the homebuilders, I suppose, it wasn't public open space with a capital "P" so we got worried that this may be talking about any green space, any open space, um, and that, and Karen clarified that, as well, so that would be an example. It wasn't things that we felt...felt were addressed, clarified, um, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 14 cluster mailboxes, another thing. It just said anything constructed, when it should have been anything platted, I believe, um, so really anything that we agreed with is kind of out there now. So, I tried to cut down on the paper, um, to be honest. Bailey: Other questions for Dan? Champion: No. I have a question though maybe for Karen. Um, can you give me an example of when we would want developers to extend the infrastructure? Howard: Um... Champion: Beyond their own. Howard: The reason that we have that word, and in fact that's in the existing code, the reason it says "and beyond" is sometimes we need to daylight, for example, a...a, um, if you have a storm sewer system, probably the City Engineer can answer this question better than I can, but he's not here tonight, but from what I understand, those situations where, um, they need to extend it to their property boundary, and have it be, the ability to connect it into the next property; so when that property comes in, if it hasn't been extended properly, they won't be able to connect into the system. So sometimes you need to daylight that system onto that property next door, so that's why it has those words "and beyond," and that's in the current code, as well. Bailey: Okay. Hayek: If...if, sorry to draw you back up, if that's...if that's the case, let's say we want to say daylight the end of the line, which I assume means set it up under ground so that it can be accessed when the next parcel's developed, adjacent to the one at issue. Uh, is there an additional cost with...with that to the developer? The first developer. Howard: Additional cost? Um, well, I... Hayek: Do we know? Howard: ...answer to that, I'm sure there's some cost to...to building it so that it, if it, you know, there's an extra piece that extends a few feet beyond their property line, um, you know, there would be that additional cost, but, um, it's basically, it's to their benefit to have the guy before them do it and the same, you know, along...down the line. So, I mean, I feel like the City Engineer would be much better able to tell you specific examples of where this has come up, um, and better answer that question. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 15 Wright: But the end beyond, we're talking just a few feet, is that correct? Howard: Right, right. Champion: Guess I'd like to know more about that. O'Donnell: (mumbled) when they had the one subdivision. Champion: Oh, right, okay, okay. Thanks. Siders: Good evening, Mayor, Council. My name is Glenn Siders. I'm with Southgate Development Services. I am speaking for Southgate and some other developers. I understand that some of my previous comments on what the Planning and Zoning ended up in your packet. If that's correct, I'm just going to highlight some of them and I won't bore you with all of them, although I do think all of them need consideration. Um, the first comment I have would be on Item 15.2.3.c. Um, there is some terminology in this proposal, using the term "peculiar." Now, whenever there's some peculiar things that come up, uh, we put those in the sub- dividers agreement. Terms like that are always troubling to us as developers, um, the thing that we hate to see most is when you look at rules and standards, you try to comply with these rules and standards, then you get hit with more things, they want more. And whenever you have terms like "peculiar" it doesn't really specify what may be peculiar. I mean, hell, I'm peculiar at times, so...um, that kind of language is just disturbing and I'd like...if they have specifics in mind, they need to address those specifics. Correia: Where is that? Champion: It's, I read that today. I'm trying to find it. Correia: 15.2-3. Siders: It is 15-2-3.c.9.e. Correia: Ah-hah, thank you. Siders: At least those are the numbers and letters I have right now. Hayek: ...it's really f, right, sub f? Champion: On page 9 of our matrix is where it's at, and it has the proposed amendment and explanation notes. (several talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 16 Siders: Um, in section 15-3-2, a.2, where they talk about their street connectivity, I think that's a good idea to plan where your street connectivity is. Uh, the part that troubles me is it doesn't mention when they expect that street connectivity or when they expect to see right-of--ways produced to reassure some type of street connectivity. When you have a large parcel of land, we are not enthusiastic about dedicating certain right-of--ways for areas that may develop two, three, five or ten years down the road because as you engineer your plats, and get down there, those right-of--ways change so you have to go through vacation procedures and so on and so forth. If they're looking for a concept plan of how you're going to continue a...a collector or an arterial street, that's fine, but I think, again, that needs to be clarified what the actual intent is for their connectivity, so we have some guideline as to what we're looking for. Um, all these comments are in 15-3. Um, in a.3, they have some language where some of the street patterns they would like you to respect natural features and topography. I'm not sure what that's telling me, uh, a lot of the planners say they're not in the design business. We're in the design business. They just tell us, uh, if it meets the standards. Well, if that's the case, I'm not sure what the language of, why this is in there. Why we need to observe natural features and topography. Anybody that designs a development obviously wants to look at that, because the less dirt you have to move, usually equates to less infrastructure you have to put in, is less expense to the development. Um, but I'm concerned when there's language like that that the City might get in the design business, and that's not the City's role as I see it. A.4 talks about cul-de-sacs. Um, there's language in there where they want to discourage cul-de-sacs. I find that confusing. Um, first of all, I don't particularly care for it because although they may not be desirable from certain maintenance standpoints and everything, that's what the market wants. People want to live on a cul-de-sac. And the reason I particularly find it disturbing is I know they're trying to discourage it, yet in Table 15-1, it outlines how you build a cul-de-sac and gives all the dimensions and requirements and that sort of thing. So I don't know why that language is even in there. Table 15-1, um, I'm having a difficult...I've not gotten an answer. I'm having a difficult time understanding parts of that Table 15-1 where it talks about cul-de-sacs, uh, there is mention of, uh, sidewalks on both sides of the cul-de-sac. Way I'm interpreting that, that would be the residential and on the inside of the cul-de-sac. I don't know if that's true. Not sure why you'd want a sidewalk on the inside of a cul-de-sac, but Table 1 clearly says you need a five-foot sidewalk on both sides of the cul-de-sac. If they're talking about something similar to loop streets where it says you put it on the residential side, I'm fine with that. But I don't think we want a sidewalk on the inside of a cul-de-sac. At least I wouldn't think that would be a real safe pedestrian travel. In h.2 they talk about traffic calming devices. You just heard a presentation how they want to widen widths for street trees; better circulation; arterial and collector streets are designed to move traffic. I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 17 know it's a popular discussion item when you get in front of many planning and zoning commissions amongst the neighborhood citizens and everything, um, and I have a difficult time understanding why you want a 34-foot street, and then all of a sudden narrow it up or something with a calming device. Uh, it also mentions where calming devices are good idea where it is warranted. We have no idea what that means -where it's warranted. Uh, so I think, again, if they're trying to specify a certain situation or standard, or they think that there is a hazard in some...some area, they need to identify that so we know how to design our street. Uh, private streets are prohibited in residential areas. Um, they're not identified at all in Table 15-1. I don't know why private streets couldn't be allowed for some residential areas. If you have an area that you have a development that you want some smaller lot development, it maybe desirable to have a little private street, instead of a city street, and it may be more economically beneficial to have that private street. So I have no idea why private streets are prohibited for residential developments. I think they should be permitted. J...in j.3 it also talks about a legally binding instrument that sets out procedures for financing. Uh, these are for areas that are maintained by an association, for example, a cul-de-sac. Uh, the City will take no responsibility with the maintenance of the interior of that cul-de-sac. In fact, they're asking that that interior be buffered, and that needs to be maintained, uh, logically it would be maintained by the homeowner's association, but at the time that you approve a development and you set up your homeowner's association, you don't have the mechanics of how that's going to be financed. There are mechanisms available where they...where it's up to the homeowners; they can come up with assessment, ways of financing; they can come up with monthly dues; they can do whatever, but it's for that association to decide what they best want. So, I don't know why we can't be a little more generic with some language that says that you have an association that's responsible for the maintenance of this, you know, and I don't know if you drop it there, but I don't want to try to get too technical because you're at the preliminary stage of that. You don't know all the details of how that's going to work. Uh, in 15-3-3 talks about low-volume cul-de-sacs. There is some language in your proposal that allows you to reduce the width of the sidewalk to four feet. If you look at Table 15-1, that's the required width, so you're not reducing anything. So you need to look at how that's worded. In, uh, c, it talks about the placement of eight-foot sidewalks, and how there are times the City may have a discretion and not want that sidewalk placed. As a developer, I would say that I think the City should have no discretion. I personally would prefer to place that sidewalk myself. I can do it for less expense...than having the City put it in later. If there are times that you, um, it's not...if it's not the appropriate time to install a sidewalk because of future development that's going to connect, then you can address that in your subdividers agreement, uh, as long as they don't calculate it like their escrow, where it's 110% at their figure This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 18 and...and you go from there. And then you have bonding situations you'd have to consider, and contractors are usually higher priced, which ends up costing the consumer more money. Uh, Section 15-3-5, where it talks about greenways. Again, I think you should be given some credit...it's very difficult in a normal subdivision when you have your open space requirements. Most developments I think these days have way more open space than what is required by your ordinance, but it doesn't get accepted by the Parks Commission because they don't want to maintain that. So you still have to pay an additional fee, even though you're provided open space. I see there is some language that they're going to give you some credit if there is a, an outlot for a public trail, they would consider that now as open space, which I don't think they had done before. But I think you should consider some credit for open space that's provided, um, but the City simply won't accept. Wright: Excuse me just a second. Could you give me an example of that, Glenn? Siders: Uh, Cardinal Ridge development, I think, is, uh, it's like 35% green space, yet...and the Parks and Recreation Commission didn't want any of those greenways, so we had to pay an additional, like, $40,000 for our open space requirement. It's counterproductive; it's expensive; and you have all this green space there. We should get some credit for that. Wright: Where was that green space located? Siders: Uh, it's...well, we followed the contours and natural features and topography in this development, um, essentially what we did is there was like four ridges, so we put the roads on the ridges and left the middles as greenways and drainage ways for your natural drainage of your storm water, you save on piping, it's open space behind the lots, and these greenways are, I want to say they're like 300-feet wide, backyard to backyard. Um, and there's two sets of those, so you have a loop street, loop street, green space in between. Lots of green space. That particular development ended up with a ration of like one and a half units per acre...density. So, it's really glow-density single-family area. Uh, I'll touch a little bit more on the, uh, beyond, extending the utilities beyond your property line. I have no problem. Well, I have a problem, but there's not much I can do about it. Building up to your property line, but many times we don't own the property that's beyond our line, and I don't...I can't think of any situation where you need to extend your utilities beyond your property. My obligation is to get the infrastructure to the property line so whoever owns that property can spend their money to carry that infrastructure into their development. The last thing I want to do is spend my money to put part of their improvements in, and a lot of times, they're a little apprehensive about me getting on their property. So, beyond the property line is a situation that I don't think is desirable, uh, and a lot of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 19 times there's topography issues when you try to get beyond the property line. There are many places where it talks about water and sewer and everything. Champion: Glenn, can I just ask...back up to the, the extending beyond the property line. Siders: Okay. Champion: When...when you put in sewer and water to your property line, that's been all approved by staff, the location of it. Siders: Yes. Champion: Okay, thank you. That's all. Siders: Um, there are many places in this, uh, draft, uh, water, sewer, sanitary sewer. I think storm sewer, where the City...where they talk about the City may want you to over-size that sewer system, or they may want you to over-size that water system, and the only reason you over-size that water system is to accommodate future development, and I'm fine with over-sizing the system, but then it says the City may reimburse you for those costs. That should be amendatory -the City shall reimburse you for those over-sized costs. Why am I being penalized and spending more money...it's not...it's not an equal competition for an adjoining property owner to develop. They need...somebody else needs to absorb that cost. I'm...I'm sizing my eight-inch sewer for my development. That's all fine and dandy. City says I want you to put 10 or 12-inches in, and they may pay me for it? I think they should...I mean shall. I think that absolutely needs to be mandatory. And that comment's found in a number of places. Uh, mailbox clusters - I don't particularly like `em, but there's not much we can do about `em, because the Postal Service won't do door-to-door delivery anymore. The only part about the mailbox, uh, cluster -it's at 5- 3-10, uh, where they talk about, uh, can't be within 12-feet from any driveway. That's going to be very difficult for me as a developer to regulate. I mean, I try to design my areas where you have a secluded of an area for mailbox collection as possible, but once we sell the lots, we don't have much control of the homeowner or where they put their drive, and I don't know that a homeowners going to be aware that they buy this lot to build their house, that all of a sudden they've got to keep their driveway 12-feet from a mailbox cluster or something. So I'm not sure that that's not an unreasonable request. That's the only part of mailbox cluster thing that bothers me. I saw you looking at your watch - I'm about done. Um, there should be a time clause in 15-3-12, I think, um, I think there needs to be a time that the staff needs to respond for particularly engineering approvals. LTh, you'll read in your matrix the comment by the staff that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 20 you've got to spend as much time as you got to spend to make sure that it's being constructed correctly. I can't argue that; they're absolutely right. The problem we've encountered is sometimes it takes weeks and months before they even look at the pictures. So I think there needs to be some time frame that they need to give us some type of response, saying it appears as though there maybe some issues here, here, and here. But they need to get it in the mechanism somehow. Most of this I'm talking about comes during the construction drawing phase after we've got our plats approved and everything. It takes a while, sometimes, to get feedback from the City. The, uh, I have some general comments. I can't give you a specific, uh, code number, but going back to what Dan commented on a little bit earlier on the mid-block pedestrian connections, I'll go back to the Cardinal Ridge development, where you have a wide open space in back that is a drainage way. Even if we had some mid-block connections, which I think that particular subdivision we may have been required because I think you may have over 600-feet of street. You'd have a walkway that goes nowhere, except into that green space, and I'm not sure you could build a walk in some of those green spaces and comply with any type of ADA requirements. And some of these mid-block connections are going to be very difficult to comply with ADA, uh, if they're mandatory that you put those in, and I'm pretty sure that they'd probably be required to be ADA, but if you have like a walkout basement situation, which again, everybody wants. It's going to be very difficult to get some of these connections in there to comply with that. We've got a situation over in Lindemann right now where we're trying to figure out how we...how we do that. So, um, I think where...I've been told there's some general language in there that says, uh, like for your turnarounds, you comply with the specs, or you comply with the standards, um, I think your matrix tells you that that's in the fire code. I think it would be helpful if in your document you can put comply with the, instead of specs or standards, they comply with the fire code, whatever you're supposed to be complying. If it's not part of this document, it would be a reference and a direction for you to go, to find out what you need to do. I have a question on...I would assume that this will go into effect, once you have your third reading and passage; how that impacts preliminary plats that have already been, uh, approved, uh, that maybe coming in for final plats. Um, I'm not sure how that works, but I would...I would like to think that any preliminary plat that's already been approved by the time this thing takes effect, may not be obligated to...to some of these things, where you have increased right- of-ways and that sort of thing. Bailey: Can one of the staff members answer that? Champion: I read that...somewhere. Siders: I'm...I'm done. Unless you have questions, I'm outta here! Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Bailey: Thank you, Glenn. Page 21 Miklo: Preliminary plat, once it's approved, it's good for a period of 24 months, so they would have 24 months, uh, to submit a final, based on the old standards, and then once that 24 months is expired, you could either seek renewal, or they would have to come into compliance with the new standards. Bailey: Thanks, Bob. Other people to speak at the public hearing? Champion: I'd just like to add a comment. To Glenn, is that a, is that an adequate amount of time? I don't know how long.. . Siders: I'm sorry? Champion: Is 24-months an adequate amount of time... Siders: Yeah, your preliminary plat actually expires unless you request to extend it, it actually expires in 24 months, so...I, you know, if it expired I don't know why you'd want to...I'm sorry? Wright: It's been workable? 24 months? Siders: 24 months...want a real answer, or (laughter)...yeah, that's fine! Bailey: Are there others who would like to speak to the public hearing? Okay. Seeing none, uh, public hearing is closed. (bangs gavel) 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) (DEFERRED FROM 6/17) Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Wright: So moved. Champion: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wright, seconded by Champion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carries. (several talking) I would entertain a (mumbled) Wilburn: I move first consideration. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 22 Wright: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Wright. Discussion? Champion: Um, I would like to wait on this. I'd like to go over the rest of this newer document, um, and go over some of these other things that we've been talking about tonight. I'd like to defer this to the next meeting. I'd like to move to defer it. Bailey: Okay. Champion: To the next meeting. Karr: To July 15th Bailey: July 15th -moved by Champion. O'Donnell: I would like to second that. I...I think there's many questions here, and I think good points brought up, um, that...that we need to look into deeper. Bailey: Okay, um... Champion: And I can, well, I guess I'll wait until we see if we pass this. Bailey: Moved by Champion, and seconded by O'Donnell to defer. Discussion on deferral? Wilburn: Uh, I personally would like to proceed with first consideration. LTh, I think there's adequate time at second consideration to get some of the questions answered, um, staff has heard the presentations, we've got the documentation, uh, with the intent to move forward, um, we've got time to, um, defer it, uh, at second. Hayek: I would support the deferral. I...you know, I don't like getting documents, uh, and then not having a time to review them, and even though Dan explained some of the differences, I'd like to see for myself what they are, um, so that would be my preference, um, and I also have a question that I can bring up next time, or figure out in the meantime, about a distinction I'm having a hard time understanding between, um, staff review and forwarding complete applications and things like that, that I haven't quite been able to figure out looking at the...the two documents, or the three documents that we've got before us tonight. Wilburn: You know we've got three readings, right? Hayek: Yeah, yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Wilburn: All right. Bailey: Wright: Champion: Further discussion on deferral? Page 23 I'd like to go ahead with the first consideration. I...I agree with Ross that we do have adequate time to continue with that. If we make changes, then you have to start all over again anyway. So.. . Hayek: Well, I'd have a question about the impact of proceeding and then taking up more questions in the second consideration. Is there any reason for doing that, or not doing that? Dilkes: Um, there is no reason you can't do it that way, but Connie's right. If you make any substantive changes to the ordinance, um, then we have to start at number one, the first reading again. Wilburn: And I'm just saying we're taking the time anyway, so... Bailey: Okay, any other discussion on deferral? Correia: Um, I would support deferral. Is there...is it an opportunity for us now, or would we do this at our next work session if we defer it to identify what clarifications or additional questions that we have on issues that we (several talking) Bailey: Okay, so staff is prepared at the next meeting. Okay, there's a motion on the floor for deferral. All those in favor of deferring first consideration say aye. Those opposed same sign. It appears that it's 4 to 3, um, to defer. Can we discuss some... Karr: And the three being? Bailey: Uh, Champion, uh, O'Donnell, Hayek, and Correia to defer. And so shall we give staff some direction, as to what information we would need at the next.. . Champion: Well, I have...I can tell you the things I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the language, that obscure language, about what was that -unusual? It wasn't unusual. Wright: Peculiar. Champion: (several talking) Peculiar. The other thing, um, I...I do think, personally, I would like some kind of buffer by a busy street, but I do think that should This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 24 be market-driven. I don't think it's up to us to make that decision. Um, thirdly, I want to know more about that stubbing beyond the property line, because you are going to other people's property, and maybe it's already been done and maybe it's common, but I'd like to have that information. Um, I also, um, I personally really like the idea of a narrow streets and the bigger median...is that (mumbled) yeah. In the residential areas, I do like that, uh, I think you save on concrete on the street, and make other things possible. Um, so that's...I don't have any problems with that one, um... Bailey: So, um, continuing to give some direction of questions you need answered, not necessarily discussion. Champion: Right, um, if we supported the long street new sidewalk entrance, whatever you want to call it - I can't remember all these terms. Bailey: Mid-block. Champion: Right, mid-block, uh, is there going to be a crosswalk there? I mean, I...is there going to be a crosswalk, are you going to have kids crossing in the middle of the block, they're basically j-walking. Um, what are the safety concerns about that, and how will that be handled. Um, I also think the developers make a valid point about if we ask them to increase the size of sewers and water that that should be split by the City. That could be collected with the next developer. Collected from the next developer who's going to use those extra-size things. Those are the things that I read through here today, um, that I'm concerned about. I might have one more, but somebody else can speak, and if I... Bailey: Do other people have directions for staff (mumbled) O'Donnell: I had, I agree in a large sense here with Connie. I had mid-block connection. I want to know how that applies. Wright: I think maybe that needs just to be clarified. O'Donnell: They need to clarify that, exactly, and how...how much it's going to come into play. Uh, I also had trouble with the buffer and sharing the expense, uh, increased sanitary sewer - I...I think that, you know, the wording is wrong. I don't think the City may. I think they should also. I had trouble with the driveway being 12 feet from a mailbox cluster. I don't know how you'd do that in a subdivision. I'd like to see how that's answered, um, I...I had two others that I' 11 come up with. Bailey: Okay, anybody else? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 25 Hayek: Yeah, my concerns are more with, uh, process and the efficiency of the process, um, and so I'd like a...I'd like matrix items five and six, um, fleshed out just a little bit more by staff, if they could, um, as to five, I'm not sure what...what the real distinction is between the right of the applicant to move forward, um, under current standards, the proposed standard, and what they're asking for, um, and then item six is, um, the, uh, essentially a shortened deadline for staff comments, um, and the HBA's running into the...the proposed re-write of that section, uh, as well. Those are the two issues, I think, that concern me the most. I'm interested in...in making the process as efficient and fair as possible, um, obviously staff needs adequate time to check for compliance, uh, but, you know, at the same time we've got an applicant is paying daily interest on a construction loan, and so each passing day or week costs money. Um, do I want to, uh, rush it through so that we're not doing a good job of insuring that there isn't compliance - no, but I...I do want us to focus on the process itself and making things efficient. So, those are the two areas I guess I would focus on. Bailey: Amy, did you have any issues that you wanted to... Correia: I support, um, Matt's suggestions, talking about the process so the, I'd like to also address the comments in five and six, in the matrix. Um, some of the other things -the super-sizing the utilities, I also wanted to talk about...about that, um, I do support a buffer, um, and so that's not an issue that I have. I also have questions about including the peculiar statement, um, so...and then I also wondered why, uh, private streets aren't allowed. So that would be something. Bailey: Anything else? I'm assuming that stubbing onto somebody else's property came from some examples that...where that didn't work well, and so if you have specific examples of where it didn't serve the City well, that would be of interest to me, because I think one of the things that's important is that we learn from our experiences, and um, that would be helpful for me, as we discuss this. Okay. Do you have what you need? Champion: (mumbled) Davidson: Clarification, Madame Mayor, and by the way, we'll...we'll get a clarification from the City Engineer on that last point you raised. I...I think he can answer that much better than we can. Um, the...the buffering item that Connie and Mike raised, was that pertaining to Interstate 80 and Highway 218? Champion: Um, the other thing, um, just refresh my memory, when we do, um, park money, open space money, public space money...does that go directly to the Commission, to the Parks and Rec Commission? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 26 Wright: You mean the fee? Champion: Yeah, the fee? Dilkes: No, it's segregated in an account that's specific to that area. Champion: Okay. Then my question is, for instance, Cardinal Ridge, I mean, that's really hilly and ravine-y, um, so where would we ever put a park in there? In a gully? Davidson: We'll include that in, when we bring information back to you at the next work session... Champion: Thank you. Davidson: ...but I think just real briefly, it has to do with the open space being useful open space, and not remnant open space that as you say, it maybe quite inaccessible. I think Parks and Rec Commission has no interest in inaccessible, unusable open space... Champion: I'm not going to maintain that. Davidson: ...to fulfill a requirement. Champion: Okay, all right. O'Donnell: I had one more. On...on a cul-de-sac. I brought this up last night. People choose to live on a cul-de-sac because it's quiet, it's safer, you have less traffic, if you have children it's, uh, I...I really like a cul-de-sac. I'd like to know how much more inefficient that you think it is, Jeff, and how do we back that up, and it seems to me that when this city said we would discourage it, or when we've done that in the past, that means it's going to be very, very difficult to happen. Davidson: Well, discouraged is the terminology that's proposed, Mike, and.. . O'Donnell: ...run into that before. Davidson: ...you know, I have to tell you, we can quantify that issue so far, and then past that point, it's really just kind of a public policy position for you all. There are definite nuts and bolts issues with cul-de-sacs in terms of garbage pickup, and particularly snow plowing. We found that out this year. Um, City of Coralville to a much greater degree than us because they have a much higher percentage of cul-de-sacs in their community than we do, but they have also adopted a position of discouraging cul-de- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 27 sacs in development, for those kinds of public service provision type things, but you are right. There's a market force there, as well, and that has to be balanced. Champion: Maybe they could be private streets. (laughter) That might be perfect! O'Donnell: We can't do that. Bailey: Okay, so, uh, further discussion on July 14th and 15th. O'Donnell: Fine. Bailey: All right. Champion: Thank you. Bailey: Moving on. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 28 ITEM 4 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. b) 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 (CONT'D FROM 6/3 AND 6/17) Bailey: This is a public hearing. (mumbled) Public hearing is open. (bangs gavel) Okay. Public hearing is... Dilkes: Just to be consistent, we probably want to do the ex-parte. Bailey: Yes. I was going to do that next. Um, before we close the public hearing? So, ex-parte communication regarding this rezoning? Any discussion? No? Okay, public hearing is closed. (bangs gavel) Thanks, Eleanor. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) (DEFERRED FROM 6/3 AND 6/17) O'Donnell: Move first consideration. Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell. Champion: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Champion. Discussion? Roll call. Item carries unanimously. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 ITEM 4 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. Page 29 c) 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- 00001) 1. PUBLIC HEARING (CONT'D FROM 6/3 AND 6/17) Bailey: This is a public hearing that's continued (bangs gavel); public hearing is open. Let's start with ex-parte communications. Any discussion that...regarding this rezoning? Champion: Oh, I did talk with Planning and Zoning about this project. Bailey: Okay. And what was sort of the nature of your conversation? Champion: How he thought it would fit in there. Bailey: Okay. Champion: Little bit about how Planning and Zoning discussed it. Bailey: All right. Um, public hearing is open, if you would like to address the Council on this issue. We are interested, really in encouraging comments that we haven't previously heard. We had a pretty thorough discussion at our last meeting. So if anybody's interested in addressing the Council regarding this. Goethe: Good evening, I'm Renee Goethe. I'm at 103 Highland Drive, and all I would like to do tonight is submit petitions that have been submitted by neighbors. These are petitions for people who live outside the 200-foot zone, where petitions would affect the number of votes to, uh, to pass this particular rezoning. However, these are neighbors who live in this area, and who are deeply concerned about the kind of rezoning that's being considered. So... Bailey: Thank you. Any other comments...before we close the public hearing? Monson: I'm Kevin Monson, representing the developer. Yeah, if you could...(mumbled)...just wanted to briefly talk about the history again. Um, as you know, this, uh, site was rezoned and downzoned and uh, the case went to the Supreme Court. Mr. Neuzil corrected me and said that they, uh, it wasn't about he density - it was about the right of the City to rezone, and um, the City did rezone. Uh, this is the early exercise that we This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 30 did, uh, for the City to show how many units would be, uh, could be developed on the site, based on the, uh, current zoning of the site. And so, uh, that, uh, shows, uh, 36 units, uh all single-families, uh, all within the, uh, setback requirements and the size limitations. Uh, so that is an example of how we got, uh, and certainly we are now proposing this, uh, and we have reduced the zoning...number of units to 31, uh, this is our proposed layout for the 31 units. Uh, and you can see, uh, we have duplexed units. As we discussed last time, I think there was some confusion about, uh, could we do all single-families, and certainly we could do all single-families, uh, we would have, uh, what we think is not a good a development because we, uh, are actually are pushing two units together so that there's a larger amount of open space between units, um, but the, um, layout would allow us to actually split those. We don't think that's the right plan, nor is it a smart plan, uh, because, uh, it's less efficient from an energy standpoint, um, I would point out that these units are planned to be geothermal, energy efficiency, and along-term cost of ownership is a big issue, and we certainly want to reduce that, uh, with the cost of energy continuing to escalate and we don't know where that's going, so we do want to have smart growth. Certainly one of the most difficult parts of this parcel is that it's in an existing developed neighborhood, and so, uh, developing within that, uh, looking at an infill site is extremely difficult, uh, for the neighborhood, and we certainly acknowledge that. Um, another issue that was brought up was the size of the units. ilh, this is actually the largest unit we show in plan. Uh, you can see the sizes of the rooms, uh, they're not extremely large, uh, this is a single-floor plan ranch with the ability to finish the lower level. Uh, some of the units may have finished lower levels, others may not. That would be the choice of the owner. Our, uh, square footage, uh, for our average size, uh, is 1,962 square feet, which is the above-ground finished square feet, which is used by the assessor and the Johnson County Recorder's office, uh, a little research from January to May of this year, the new single-family homes, including condos sold in Iowa City and Coralville, averaged 2,015 AGFSS, so that is the average sold that Johnson County, uh, for the records from January to May, and so you can see that our average, uh, is actually below that of 1,962 square feet. We have 19 units that are 2,042 square feet, and we have 12 units that are 1,835. Those smaller units are the ones closest to the, uh, Olive Court and Learner neighborhood, uh, and you can see that, uh, in our site plan, and we've done that intentionally, uh, so, uh, I guess the point we would like to make here is that yes, these units maybe larger than the average units on Leamer and Olive Court. Those units were built, those houses were built anywhere from 50 to 93 years ago; uh, we probably wouldn't build those exactly like that today. The market forces probably, uh, would ask for something different. And we believe that diversity is good, that we do not want to be in the same market as the existing neighborhood so that we're in competition for home buyers. We believe that choices are good, uh, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 31 this is a different product, this is a condominium product, which the current neighborhood is single-family, uh, and so we believe that we can live very cohesively together and diversity is a very positive thing. It is not a negative, uh, and we think, um, that actual development of this property would be much quicker, under this scenario than as you can see that the obviously the existing neighborhood developed over a very, very long time, and so disruption of the neighborhood we've heard about construction and the...and how much time it would take to build. Obviously the exiting neighborhood took a very long time to build, uh, and we think with this plan, it actually would reduce that construction time, uh, in this model. So, uh, we do believe that we've met the zoning requirements, uh, we do believe that this is going to be a positive, uh, improvement, uh, we also acknowledge that many in the community would like this is stay as a green space, uh, but we do believe that the land owner has the right to develop this according to the zoning requirements, and that we've met those, and in many cases, uh, exceeded those, and we've been, uh, very cognizant of the character of the neighborhood, um, and we don't believe that these are overly large, uh, this is a single unit, um, and as I pointed out, we have put several of these back-to-back, uh, which increases the open yard space, uh, it doesn't increase the density. It wasn't a technique to increase density at all, uh, but actually to improve efficiency of the unit, as well as to create more open space, and the feeling of open space, so...um, with that, um, there was some questions at the last hearing about the runoff, the water runoff issues, and I'd like Ron Amelon of MMS to come and, uh, clarify some of those issues, and I would be available for questions later. O'Donnell: Let me ask you one question. Monson: Sure. O'Donnell: What's the maximum number of units you could get on this piece of property, with the present zoning? Monson: Under the present, we showed 36, uh, that would be somewhat mitigated because of the slopes issue. O'Donnell: Okay. Monson: But, uh, that diagram actually showed very detailed side yards, setbacks, all of those requirements. We do not intend to do that model, and that was just an exercise to show how much could be developed, but that is not the model, and we don't show that because, uh, but that's where we started. O'Donnell: Okay, thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Bailey: Thanks, Kevin. Page 32 Amelon: I'm Ron Amelon with MMS Consultants, and I'm here on behalf of the developer. At the...last meeting there were some...thanks, Karen. At the last meeting there were some concerns and questions raised about the drainage on the property, and I'd just like to explain that a little bit, address that. Right now at the current condition there is a 21-inch diameter storm sewer that outlets from University Heights onto this property, at the west end of this property. Uh, from there, there has been...fill that has been placed and a small tie line that has been put in, so that, uh, Neuzils could park cars on the property, and that has kind of blocked part of the drainage, and at the west end where the...they're pointing right now, there's water that stands. Uh, it doesn't drain very well. Uh, what we're proposing to do is to install a storm sewer line that'll connect and pick up the runoff from the 21-inch diameter storm sewer, have an area drain that'll also collect surface water to drain that area...it will be a much larger pipe so that that area will drain. There will no longer be standing water there, and that will convey it down to the, uh, storm water retention basin. Um, and there was some concern with the detention basin would back water up onto the neighboring property. The west end of the property is down in the bottom of the ravine. If you follow the bottom of the ravine, the bottom of the ditch is 20-foot higher at the west end of the property than it is at the east end of the property, so there's 20-feet of slope across that bottom of the ravine. The proposed detention basin will pond water an approximate depth of 10 feet, so it'll back water up halfway through out property, to the property to the west, but it will not ever get water farther, so it'll back water up to the property to the west. Champion: After last week I don't think ever say never. Amelon: Well, that's true! There can always be a Noah's Ark flood. So...I wouldn't say ever. Um, but it should help the drainage by putting this pipe through there. The runoff from both of the streets, both streets slope towards the east, so the storm sewer at the end of the cul-de-sac, and at the southeast corner of the loop street, and then storm sewers will convey it down to the storm water detention basin. So the runoff from the impervious streets will be captured into the storm water detention basin, and as far as the runoff down stream, I heard some people concerned that it would increase the runoff to down stream, um, I'm sure, as you know, the City has a storm water detention ordinance where we're required to detain the runoff and reduce the peak runoff rate to the down stream properties, so by providing the detention basin, we will be reducing the peak runoff to the down stream property. Are there any questions? Bailey: Questions for Ron? Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 33 Olson: I'm Anna Olson. I wanted to confirm that you all received the correspondence that I submitted, uh, last Tuesday the 17t"? Yeah, and I wanted to make sure that no one had any questions. I'd like to take the opportunity to answer any, if you had any. Okay. Um, well, yesterday I received an email chain, from Karen Howard, where she had been communicating with Mr. Munson and Mr. Hendrickson, um, and it forwarded some numbers which, um, are actually discordant with the numbers that he displayed this evening, but I'll use the ones that he displayed this evening, since those are the ones that are in public record, as opposed to the ones that were emailed to me. Um, his best attempt, you know that the purpose of what I wrote to you is to explain the real discrepancy between our existing neighborhood and the houses I submitted were those within 200 feet, because that is what the City says those property owners have the ability to only participate in this process. Um, his best attempt to minimize the glaring discrepancies between the existing neighborhood and the proposed neighborhood cited, um, 1,962 for the smallest unit, and the duplex, which he...under one roof that's 4,024 square feet. Um, the number of homes within 200 feet that fall below that are two. There are two homes out of 100 within 200 feet of the property that are larger in size than his smallest sized proposal. Those numbers are 2,300 square feet, and the second is only 1,904, so just shy of that. Um, the median, just for public record, um, is 1,065 square feet. The median value is $164,410. When you look at his numbers compared to what is there, that results in, um, the smaller units being 60% larger than the existing home, and when you look at the duplex, if you consider a duplex as a structure, that's 250% larger than the median sized home in our area. If you want to separate them out, I know he keeps separating -that's still 75% larger than the existing home. So I'm not at all opposed to developing the land. I've actually learned a lot by coming to every single one of these meetings, and listening to the process, but I'd just like to ask the respect for the existing neighborhood. There is a character to the neighborhood. I understand it's been built over all these years, but I just can't understand how adding four different styles that are so much larger, dwarfing the existing neighborhood, is the right thing to do. Thanks. Bailey: Thank you. Other comments? Whitmer: My name is Amanda Whitmer, and I live at 59 Olive Court, and I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to come and express my opinion. Um, I live, uh, three doors down from this proposed development. Um, and I've lived there for approximately seven years. I came here to Iowa City to go to school and I loved it so much that I stayed. And I chose to buy in this neighborhood because of its character. Um, I loved its proximity to downtown, where I work. I love that it's adead-end, quiet street. I love that all my neighbors are mostly young professionals, providing a social This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 34 outlet, and I even love the tailgating. So there's at least one person who loves having all those people downtown six Saturdays, or in our neighborhood, six Saturdays a year. I am concerned about this development, um, I appreciate the efforts of the architect and the developer to, uh, to blend in with the neighborhood. It's...it's done better than anything else I've seen. I'm just not quite sure that it's quite there yet. As, uh, as Anna said, we're concerned about the size. My house, three doors down, is um, a footprint of 780 square feet, and the cost, while it does prevent...prohibit it being used for student rent, it also prohibits other young professionals from coming to our neighborhood. Um, I know that is something that Iowa is, in general, and Iowa City in specific is...tries to do is keep its young professionals in the neighborhood, and, um, this is one of those things that...that cities do that it kind of prices them out of affordable housing. Um, I'm not fond of the garage-centric. They've tried to do it a little bit, but all of the garages in my neighborhood are either, um, behind the house, like mine is, or not, doesn't even have one at all. Um, I also don't relish the thought of living in a construction zone for four plus years, which was the, um, best-case scenario. Obviously, I...I'm not, I don't like change. If I had the money I would have bought the lot myself and left it as is, but uh, I...I ask that we, if we have to have a development, I would like to see one that enhances the existing character of the neighborhood, as opposed to changing it. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Lehman: I'm Tim Lehman, and I'm a...the Realtor here with Coldwell Banker, and uh, I represent and am working with Jeff Hendrickson on this project. I want to give a little bit of history of what I've seen over the last couple years. My understanding is that we are the fourth offer or fourth projected developer on this property. Uh, the first person or the first developer, an independent company that was going to try to put in 175 units on the property, which I think everybody would agree is pretty impractical. The, uh, second developer, I think, got it down to about 75 units, and they felt it just wasn't going to be financially feasible, and then I think the third, uh, person was, uh, was going to do something along the lines of a private tailgate, uh, sell private tailgating spots, and I think that was going to turn out to be a commercial endeavor, which would not go through rezoning on the property. Um, I worked with Jeff Hendrickson on the Brookdale development up there in front of the Athletic Club. There's six units that are very similar to what we're going to do here, and uh, I know Jeff...Jeff is a good developer. Uh, he wants to be a good neighbor to the...to what's going on in the neighborhood here, and uh, on the Brookdale condos, we probably did those three or four years ago. They're only six of them, and uh, three or four of the six were sold before they were built, before they were finished. The last two had multiple offers on them, so I think there's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 35 going to be a demand for this type of...this type of development we're doing here, we're projecting. Um, there's going to be a homeowners association with the property, which means that there will be, uh, snow removal, lawn care is going to be consistent, taken care of, um, getting back to Brookdale - I think some of the owners on Brookdale, uh, I think three of them might be a second home for, and that...that kind of came to everybody's, came to light here a couple weeks ago that, um, there might be some vacant properties there, but I think if it's going to be a homeowners association, the grounds are going to be maintained on a consistent basis. I know the...we've, Jeff and I have worked on this for almost two years now, on this...on this property. We've seen some of these developers come and go. LJh, the last seven months we've worked very closely with the Planning and Zoning, and I think we've really tried to answer all the questions, um, everything that's been brought to our attention. Uh, some of the things that have come up, the traffic for example, um, I just don't see the traffic being a problem, and I think, uh, in University Heights, we all know how, what a great job University Heights' police force does over there. I think we've all experienced them. I think they'll do a great job if there's a traffic problem now with speeding on Olive or Learner. My gosh, we certainly have the officers and the people to take care of it. I just think it's going to be a great development; um, we've probably been contacted by about a dozen people that are interested in putting a name on some of these already, so I don't think the size of it's going to be a problem. Uh, I think they'll sell. Um, Jeff and I are in this for the long-run, and we expect it to sell. I'd just like to see everybody vote yes to this, uh, to this, um, rezoning application so we can all go forward with this. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Eckey: Hi, I'm Martha Eckey. I'm from 33 Highland Drive. Um, I just wanted to urge you to please vote against the rezoning of Neuzils' field, and there, I think, are several compelling reasons why we shouldn't be doing this. Um, the first one is, well, what lots of other people have said is that these proposed luxury condos are far larger and more expensive than most of the houses in the surrounding neighborhood, no matter how you slice and dice it, they're much bigger. I mean, um, that's the first thing. Secondly, it sounds like the developers and real estate agents, they're...they expect many of these condos to be purchased, but I'm not really sure who is going to be buying these things, honestly. I mean, they say that maybe wealthy Hawkeye fans are going to be purchasing these as second homes, but to me I think that's really disruptive to the neighborhood. Many of these condos are going to be occupied only for part of the year, and part- year residents I don't think really care about the neighborhood in the same way that full-year residents do. They're just kind of coming to have a little fun, and then they just leave. Um, so I think that the condo This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 36 development won't contribute positively to the friendly fabric of our neighborhood, and in fact, it will have a de-stabilizing effect on a very sensitive area. Um, on that same token, I really think that many of the condos aren't going to sell, um, if you consider the real estate market now, home prices nationally fell 16% in April, from a year earlier, and sales of new homes have fallen 42% over the last year. So, although the real estate market in Iowa City might seem to be holding up fairly well, it's unrealistic to expect the state of affairs to continue. Unfortunately, Iowa City isn't some charmed oasis. It's subject to the same economic pressures as everywhere else, and with rising oil and food prices, we're adding to inflation rate...pressures, and it's really only a matter of time before these interest rates must rise to counteract this. Um, and in fact, interest rates already appear to be bottoming out. So, with interest rates higher, and home prices dropping, the condos I don't think will really be that attractive investments. Um, neither are they located in a very scenic area, um, or adjacent to a golf course, like the Valley Condominium expansion in Coralville, um, and incidentally, those units cost about $275,000 to $410,000, much cheaper than the, these proposed condominiums, which range from $550,000 to $700,000, um, so these are very expensive properties. Um, so I think it's unlikely that many of these condos are going to be purchased as second homes, and then the developers have also said in the past that they believe young professionals, or perhaps medical residents will be purchasing these homes, but um, as a graduate student myself, I don't know how these people are going to be affording almost three-quarter of a million dollar homes when they surely have huge student loans to pay off themselves. Where are they going to get the funding, and if they do happen to be fortunately really rich, I mean, wouldn't they choose to just live in a uniformly upscale area, instead of being marooned on this island in a sea of modest starter homes? It just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, with the whole diversity argument, I don't really understand what he means by that, but I...I'm not convinced, sorry. Um, further more, buildings which are left empty, either because they haven't yet sold or because they're only lived in for parts of the year, um, they're really crime magnets, especially in a sensitive area. And I know that he, one fellow just mentioned the homeowners association, and everything's going to be kept up, and that's great, but these people aren't going to be around monitoring the property. I mean, they're just going to mow the lawn and take off. So I don't see how that's really going to help too much. Um, and then of course the construction, the four years, um, that's going to be a big pain. The quality of life in the surrounding area is going to be severely diminished. We're going to be forced to put up with construction, noise, obnoxious sounds, pollution, equipment traffic, various eyesores, and the point of all this is that property values in the neighborhood are going to drop substantially during this time. Um, the developers have said that ultimately after it's all done that property values are actually going to go up, but I mean, how do we really know that's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 37 going to happen, and it's going to be, you know, probably about half a decade before we see any change. Until then, the prices are going to be plummeting. So, I find that very disturbing. Um, and then according to the developer's plan, which we saw earlier up here, um, Learner and Olive Courts would be extended and connected via a u-shaped path, um, and I really that increases traffic density along those streets. I know this fellow said that...that wouldn't be a problem, but how does he know that? I mean, it could easily be a problem. Maybe it wouldn't be, but it's definitely something to consider. So, I think it would make far more sense, and be better in every way, is simply extend Leamer, Olive and Marietta, ending each in a different cul-de-sac or even adead-end, which most people prefer because it's a much more neighborly atmosphere, and instead, building modest single-family homes along these extensions, in a size, style and price range that's consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. I think that would be the best idea for any developing...if any developing needed to be taking place. So, please vote against it. I repeat. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Does anybody have anything new to add to the discussion? Kamps: I do. My name is Mark Kamps. I live at 1104 Tower Court. By the way, I got that exact same flyer that she just read off, uh, yesterday at my house, and I guess I could have read the same thing. The only thing that... Bailey: Excuse me...oh. Kamps: The only thing that I'm going to mention is the fact that there's an 800- pound gorilla in the background, and that's the University of Iowa, and if the University of Iowa were to purchase that property, as you know, none of us would be here tonight. We wouldn't have any decision, uh, we wouldn't have any way to, uh, discourage them from doing whatever they want to do. If they want to build a dormitory there, I believe that they can do whatever they want to do, if I'm not mistaken, with any land that they own. And so, um, you know, that's...we'd have no say in the development, uh, we'd have no Council approval, and we'd lose out on about a $15 million, um, tax...taxed property over there. So, I just think that, uh, this is the thing to do, um, it was unanimously approved by Zoning, uh, this developer has done everything that he's supposed to do, and I think it should be approved. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you, Mark. Any new...information. Moore: I do have something very new, I promise. I wasn't going to speak, but Mark brought this up. The University, yes, they could buy this property and they could put a giant outhouse on it, and we would never be here and they could do whatever they wanted, unlike these gentlemen. I actually This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 38 talked to people at the University. I spoke with Doug Truitt and Andy Piro. Quote, unquote, we are not buying that property. We have no interest in going on that side of the railroad tracks. That's all I have to say. Bailey: Thank you. Please state your name for the record. Eckey: Doris Eckey, 33 Highland Drive. I spoke before...I wasn't going to speak, but I just feel that I need to defend Martha Eckey who spoke earlier. Uh, he just said I read the flyer and, you know, and she just recited it or something. I just wanted to say that she wrote half of the flyer and I wrote the other half, and so since she wrote it, I think she can use that as her speech if she wants to. Bailey: We have no objections to written... Eckey: Okay. Bailey: That's fine, thank you. Olson: And my name is Aaron Olson, 79 Olive Court. I just wanted to make a quick point. A respectful disagreement with the, you had...somebody had asked, um, under the current zoning how many units could we place there, and...and the response from the developer was 36. Well, that theoretically may be possible with the overlay. I think looking at the topography of the land and realistically I don't think that that's a realistic number, and I just ask that you independently verify that with your own independent experts before taking that at face value. Thanks. Bailey: Thank you. Banker: My name's Don Banker and I live at 1108 Tower Court. We've lived at this residency for 44 years. So I don't think I'm a rookie talking about what has developed around during that 44 years. If you take a look at what has happened in that 44 years, the density around us is tremendous, and when I look at this, and I see high-range type properties, I can't for one reason see where this is going to reduce the cost of my house, because my house is about a third of what they're costing of these particular units. I don't...I just worry about if this isn't going to be accepted, what next? And I can see tremendous amount of apartments being placed there, because that's the only thing can be done to economically do that...that, develop that property. And when I look at around, that 44 years as I said, Oaknoll, Seville, all around us, the density has increased considerably. I don't feel a threat to this, myself. And I live about 300 feet from it. So, it's your decision, I guess, but I wanted to voice my opinion. Thank you. And I too received this in the mail. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 39 Bailey: Thank you. Anybody else have something new to add to the discussion? Collins: Well, I do. I'm Dave Collins. I live at 103 Highland, uh, also, which would be just off the left edge of that developed area there, and I'm deeply ambivalent really (laughter). I love the green open space. It's the best thing to look out at from our dining room window while we're sitting there eating, and were this development to go through as planned, we would basically be staring at, you know, a bunch of extremely large cookie-cutter buildings that, uh, about two and a half of our house could fit inside. And the thing that I think I'm worried the most about is the drainage. I know that was addressed earlier, but I would love more detailed explanation because as it stands right now with, as was mentioned earlier, the...the west end of the ravine, uh, laying about 20 feet higher than the east end where it, uh, drains toward Melrose pond/sinkhole/swamp thing down there. I'm not sure what it's officially called, and yet water is still backed up onto our property. Our property is, uh, near the other end of the ravine, which, you know, starts up on George Street and sinks as it goes. And I'm worried because I...I assume those, uh, sort of curvy lines there are the retaining walls, and with, uh, those kind of negating the slope of the ravine on both sides somewhat with the buildings themselves, just basically covering the ground, I'm worried that all the drainage that goes down is basically going to come tearing down there, instead of kind of soaking gently into the ground, and basically turn that into a canyon, or if it doesn't, it's going to back right up farther into my yard, turning what's a little bit boggy, uh, during the best of times, you know, into the Everglades (laughter) complete with gators and mosquitoes the size of gators. I worry a lot, and I haven't seen in everything I've read and heard about this development any real details about the drainage as it's planned, and I worry that because we haven't heard a lot that maybe we aren't meant to, and uh, I'm blanking on anything else I might have had to say, so I'll wrap it up. Thanks. Bailey: Thank you. Hendrickson: Good evening. I'm Jeff Hendrickson; I'm the developer. Why don't we just start by talking a little bit about the drainage, since that just came up. I think Ron from MMS laid it out pretty well, but right now every drop of water that falls on that property, right now, drains away from any surrounding house, and drains to the ravine, and nothing's going to change. It's still all going to drain to the ravine, and the ravine falls hard to the east, and as of right now, the water is pretty much running uncontrolled into Melrose Lake, which does make it high after heavy rains. We're going to fix that. We're going to control by code how much water can go in there, um, and so that...and we will have a storm basin at this east end that will hold the extra water after a heavy rain, until we get it This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 40 into the lake at the proper rate. LTh, the water at the west end of the property, which the gentleman just mentioned is backing up onto University Heights property. Well, one reason it's doing that is because it's University Heights water, and it's been just being dumped there, um, really, without any control, and what we're going to do, we're going to actually hook the storm sewer up, our new storm sewer, to that pipe in the backyard, right there in University Heights, that'll go underground. You won't see it. It'll be gone. It'll go down to our storm basin and then from there, it'll be funneled into the lake at the proper rate. Any questions on the drainage? I also wanted to talk a little bit about our walking path. Uh, at the City's request, we have agreed to make the walking path, uh, six- feet wide. We proposed four to begin with, and we're going to make it seven-inches thick so that City trucks can get on the walking path as needed to service storm sewers and other utilities down in there, and that's fine. Uh, the streets are public that are going in on this property. The sidewalks on the streets are public, um, and there will be public traffic on the streets, on the sidewalks. Um, I have no problem with the path as proposed. That drawing right there doesn't actually show the path, but it goes right down through here and over the berm and back up, uh, it'll be used by the public, um, if there's abuse, the association can deal with it at that time. Uh, one concern would be football Saturdays. If there, if people want to use it to cut through there and they stay on the path, I don't a problem. If...if they linger down in the bottom and start partying down in there, then we got a different situation. And that'll be remedied when we get there. Any questions on the paths? Bailey: And that's the reason you made it a private path, instead of a.. . Hendrickson: Yes, well, one reason was, we wanted to...we wanted to actually con...have some control over what happened on our property. By making a private path, we feel we can do that. Um, but it's not a problem for it to be used as scut-through by the public, as long as it's not abused. You know, the...the market, the market that we're going after is really two- fold, and this has been talked about, but I wanted to review this. There, um, aging baby-boomers who are retired or near retirement, they're looking for the convenience of condo living. They still want to have a nice, spacious luxury home like they've become used to, and that's a big market right now. And I think it's untapped. In Iowa City right now, and Coralville, there's very few areas that are really meeting this demand. Um, I think of places like, um, Country Club Drive in the Valley in Coralville, or Rochester Hills on the east side of Iowa City, and there's a few other new ones going up, but they're selling and they're going fast, and there's nothing in west Iowa City or University Heights that has anything like that at all. And, you know, it's one thing to try to fit in with the neighborhood, and I think we've done that, but it's another thing to have to duplicate the neighborhood, and I...I don't like the feeling I get This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 41 sometimes from the neighborhood. It's fine to develop this now, but you gotta look like us. And I think diversity is good. Kevin said that very. well. And we don't want to compete with them. We want to be neighbors to them, and, you know, we've got a piece of ground here that I'm buying at 2008 prices, and the homes that the neighborhood live in now, I mean, they're nice homes, it's a unique area, has a lot to offer, but they...they were built a half a decade...a half a century ago, or more. Things have changed. You...you can't build a house without a garage attached and sell it. You can't put a garage back behind, and I think that...I think that we've done a good job to actually, um, make our homes, um, from a front elevation style really fit in with the neighborhood, and...and I think other than the retirees, there is a huge mark...or market out there, um, of middle-aged professionals, um, not residents. Young professionals, working at the Hospital, two family incomes that will like the upscale living of these condos and the ability to walk to work, and to walk home from work, without having to move your car, without having to park it, and...and you know what the parking and traffic problems are like over there. And, you know, as far as anybody up here trying to say that the market's not good and values are down and home sales are down - I mean, it's been tough, but it's picking up, um, I'm building houses, um, I closed on ahalf-million dollar house last month, and I'm closing on another house tomorrow. So we've sold a house each of the last two months. Those were, uh, those were spec homes. And I think we've made it pretty clear that the size of these units is not what they were advertised last week by some of the comments here at this forum. Uh, I mean, numbers got throwed around...thrown around that we were building 4,000 and 5,000 and 6,000-square foot houses. We're building 2,000-square foot units. That's what they are, and they've very average compared to what people are buying today. They'll be...they'll be very detailed and they'll be very upscale with high amenities. Um, you know, and I think that when a developer is buying land at 2008 prices and paying $211,000 an acre, I think he needs some latitude to identify his market and to build to that segment, and you know, there's a certain point where the City and the neighborhood should not be in the design business, because I'm the one that's gotta sell `em, and L ..I think we've got to design `em, and I think we've got something here that'll be very nice. Does anybody have any questions for me while I'm up here? Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. O'Donnell: Thank you. Bailey: Any other comments? Something new that we haven't heard, perhaps? Poroy: My name is Oguz Poroy, 36 Highland Drive. I just want to point out I spoke with Mayor From of the City of University Heights, and she said This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 42 whatever she may have said about this project was her personal opinion, and the City of University Heights doesn't have an official stand on this project. I wanted to clarify that. Bailey: Thank you for clarifying that. Moore: My name is Amy Moore. I'm at 77 Olive Court, and more critically, I'll be very brief. This has been touched on somewhat, but not really addressed by anyone that's come forth, I don't think either this evening or at the past public hearing, and that is the other developments that have come down the pike on this particular parcel. There's actually been four proposals just in the last five years. So I guess what I want to do is just stress to the Council, and touch on what Ms. Champion referred, or mentioned the last public hearing. This property's going to get developed. I don't think there's any question of that. The beauty of a planned development like this though is Council can be in the design business. You are in the design business, and you can afford to be extremely particular and choosy, as far as this tract is concerned. Because even if you decide that this is not the plan for this tract, there's another one coming. It's pretty much a guarantee. So, all I'm asking is that Council realize that you can, and are, and will be in the design business as far as this is concerned, because it is a planned use development, and you can look at these characteristics of design and the surrounding neighborhood, and everything else that's been brought up here tonight, and analyze those extremely critically, because it's not going to act as an impediment to this development of this property, if you were to reject this particular plan. Simply because there's going to be a slew of other ones. So, I would just ask that Council look at that critically, and just wait for the proper plan to come down the pike, because it's just a matter of time before it does. Thanks. Bailey: Thank you. Hettmansperger: Hi, I spoke last time, as well. My name is Sue Hettmansperger, and I'm at 114 Highland Drive, and one of the previous gentlemen raised the issue of how many apartments and other multiple family dwellings are in the neighborhood. It's just unbelievable. The pressure from all of that development of the retirement home and all of the apartments, uh, and it feels like it has encroached upon our single-family, modest homes, greatly, and I still would like to see if the developer came back with the notion ofsingle-family dwellings, then I would not be opposed to it. Bailey: Thank you. Any other comments before I close the public hearing? Public hearing is closed. (bangs gavel) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 43 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) (DEFERRED FROM 6/3 AND 6/17) Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. O'Donnell: So moved. Correia: Second. Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Correia. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. Wilburn: Move the first consideration of the ordinance. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Hayek: I have a question for staff, um, to start this off with. Bailey: Great. Hayek: Um, are there any requirements concerning the width of a home in RS-8? And by that I mean a... a detached single-family home. Howard: Just in a conventional subdivision? Um, there's just minimums. Um, there's no maximum. Hayek: And what is that minimum? Howard: The minimum, uh, we have a minimum lot width in the RS-8 zone, which is for single-family homes, I believe, uh, 45-feet. I believe that's right for single-family homes. The width of the lot for attached homes is 35-feet. So that means with a required five-foot side yard, um, the minimum width of a house, um, would have to be, uh, 40...or 35-feet. So, you could foot...fit, uh, use a minimum lot size of 45-feet, and get a 35-foot wide house on the lot, but you can always go larger than that, and we (mumbled) lot sizes wider, narrower, to accommodate whatever house style they want. Hayek: Okay, and...and single-family homes shown on this are, I believe, 40- feet? Howard: They are 40-feet wide, which, uh, would fit on a typical 50-foot wide, um, single-family house lot, which is pretty typical for an RS-8 zone. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Hayek: Thank you. Page 44 Correia: Karen, could you stay up there? There...there was a question earlier also asking to confirm with staff the number of...the maximum number of homes that could be developed on this parcel, with the RS-8, given the topography and all of the other (mumbled). Howard: I think the wild card here...I think the zoning study that...that the developer was required to submit, uh, with the application so that we could review the density, um, is correct. They...they laid that out with the required minimums, and uh, could get 36 units on the property. The question then is more of a subjective one about how much encroachment into those slopes, which is really the question...large question, and one of the biggest reasons this is a planned development. Bailey: Any other questions for Karen before she sits down? Okay, thank you, Karen. All right, further discussion? Champion: Well, I'm not concerned whether they sell or not. That's not my concern. That's not why I'm up here. I'm not up here to decide what the real estate market is, or whether the house is going to sit empty or unsold. I have given a lot of thought to this project. I've driven down there and tried to walk down there, and...and I've become a supporter of it. I think it's going to nestle in there quite nicely, and then I got to thinking about diversity and I think about the street I live on. There are houses from $150,000 to $850,000 on the street I live on. So I don't really think...that, I love diversity in neighborhoods. That's why I live where I live. I've lived in new subdivisions, and I...I didn't like it for that reason, that there was no diversity in housing. So I...I don't think it's going to become a crime magnet. I think the drainage is going to be taken care of, and I think, um, I think this is, in my mind now, has turned into a really nice development, and I am going to support it. Wright: I agree with most of what you said, Connie. Um, these are no behemoth homes that we're looking at. You know, they're roughly the 2,000-square foot average. Um, article in the New York Times on Sunday -maybe some of you saw this, was talking about the new small home being the trendy thing, and the small homes they were talking about are 2,000 square feet -the national average for new construction has been significantly higher than that for some time. Um, and I understand that the developer's, uh, desire to come in at this particular size, it seems to be a good size for the market that they're looking at. It's a good neighborhood for this type of an in-fill development. It's a walkable, it's bikable, um, I think a number of the concerns that, coming from the neighborhood, are concerns that they appreciate; the character of the neighborhood is very important, um, but character of the neighborhood doesn't just depend on This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 45 the houses. It depends on the people that come in, and that...that can truly be the wild card. Um, and I would certainly hope that if this development does go through that...that folks in the new development and folks in the neighborhood will...will be able to coalesce in a neighborly and agreeable manner. Um, I think this is actually a very good development. I...I think it's appropriate, and I applaud the developer and the architect that they've been able to come up with, um, and by the way, Mike, Marietta makes sense to be a cul-de-sac. (laughter) O'Donnell: And...and I agree with what Connie and Michael said. I also think it's a good project. I think the developer has been very sensitive to the area. He's not trying to get the maximum number of units. He's addressed, uh, drainage and it's reasonable to assume if you buy a home and there's nine and a half acres there of bare ground that something's going to be there some day, um, and I think this has been addressed very, very well by this developer, and uh, I will support it. Bailey: Further discussion? Hayek: Um, I can speak up. I...we've heard several hours of pro and con, and I can certainly say that my six months on this Council, this is the most attention I've paid to an application, uh, like this. Um, I find many of the objections, uh, made not compelling to me. I think the supposed wealth of, uh, future owners or costs of the homes themselves, uh, is not a reason, in my opinion, to deny this. I think the notion that these would be condominiumized is not a reason to oppose this. I think, uh, the supposition that the developer might go broke is not a reason, uh, to oppose this. Um, and I think the idea that owners might not be there year- round is not a reason to oppose this. Um, some of the other objections are a little more compelling to me, but...but not by much. I'm not concerned about the argument that there will be traffic problems as people try to avoid a stoplight. I think we've had staff look at that and they're not concerned about that. Um, I think ecological concerns are...are valid, but I'm satisfied that...that, uh, that that issue has been addressed, and that, uh, we will have protection of not only slopes, but of water drainage and those associated issues. But one objection is compelling to me, and that is the size of these structures. Um, especially and particularly the attached dwellings. Um, they are quite large, visa-ve, the homes and the area around here in question. I think the building footprint of the attached structures is around 5,400-square feet. That's quite big, and it's not consistent with the neighborhood. And, uh, when...when you elect to go through the planned development process, uh, you get some things -you get some breaks from the City in terms of having to comply with requirements, and...and that's the purpose of it, but you also open your application up, uh, for heightened review from the City, um, and in our zoning ordinance, one of the standards that we can apply as we apply a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 46 heightened standard to this is, uh, is the question -will these structures, does this design compliment the adjacent development -and in my opinion, those attached structures, uh, don't do so. Um, it's a hard decision, but, uh, that's where, uh, that's where I get hung up, or caught up on this, and that's the reason I will not support this. Wilburn: Juggling the rights of, uh, a property owner to sell, uh, their property for whatever use, uh, for a developer to...to build, for them to make certain, um, adjustments, consolidations versus how things fit into a neighborhood, you know, that's always a difficult thing, it's always a subjective thing, and you just have to give your best judgment. Uh, I've supported in-fill development, uh, in the past, uh, I'll be supporting this. Uh, helps reduce negative impact of sprawl in other areas, um, I think part of the things that you have to consider, or that I'm considering anyway, uh, in terms of the size of some of the attached units, um, that this will be a lower impact, in terms of, uh, in terms of density on the...on the neighborhood. Um, and I'm trying to juggle, um, well, the developer himself mentioned, uh, you know, 2008 prices and considerations they're going to have to make and who they're going to try and market to. I do support the mixed neighborhood concept that, uh, Connie brought up, uh, that there are certain...it's okay to look at certain niches that you're trying to fill, um, also I think this will make an improvement to the water runoff issue, um, there's uh, again, after the recent water, uh, floods and things like that, there's no certainties, but uh, with developments in the past in the City that we've approved, we've seen improvements to certain areas where runoff and things like that have been a question, so, uh, for those reasons I will be supporting this. Bailey: Further discussion? Correia: Um, I respect the pride and cohesion of the neighbors in this neighborhood, and spending the time to organize and coming to these meetings, all of the meetings that all of you have attended. I've also spent a lot of time in consideration on this issue. Um, I understand the desire to want to protect the way of life that...that you've lived in this neighborhood, um, but I do support the project, um, the in-fill development aspect of it. I think it's one of the values that we have, to try and restrict sprawl in our community. Um, I think about looking at other neighborhoods in town that have grown over time, um, the neighborhood that I live in, there's a mix of smaller houses, um, houses that are larger, and as you move along, um, the street. I understand that the sale price of this land is roughly $2 million, um, if this was something that the City were to purchase and...and to look at affordable housing, we would be able to do some of the things that folks, um, might be suggesting, although I have been in public hearings when...when there's been an effort to try to put in affordable homes into a neighborhood, and there's been a lot of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 47 opposition. So, it's interesting to see opposition to, um, new development that are going to higher end, um, so I don't know if that's a...a tendency of wanting to preserve the way of life and being worried about change, um, I like that these are going to be geothermal units, um, I like that we're protecting, um, open space, um, that the developer is open to having that be, um, public...be used, um, I also think of neighborhoods that I grew up in that had undeveloped land that developed over time, and those homes were different than the homes that were there, um, in the first phase of...of development. Um, so I will be supporting this. Bailey: Thanks, Amy. Um, I share some of the same concerns that Matt presented about the mass of these, um, homes. However, in...in talking and hearing some of the comments about the market and also, um, just thinking about my own preferences, the houses on Marietta and Olive Street are much to my...they appeal much more to me, but one of the things that I've learned in doing some of this work is what appeals to me doesn't necessarily appeal to other people, and won't necessarily meet the requirements of the market, and what Mike Wright said about the average size of homes now, I mean, it makes a lot of sense. It makes sense for a developer to be responsive to a market, and uh, respectful of the neighborhood, and I...I see that balance in this. So I'm going to be supporting this rezoning, as well. So, further discussion? Roll call. Item carries 6-1 with Hayek voting in the negative. (mumbled) Okay, let's take aten-minute break. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 48 ITEM 4 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. d) 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). (REZ-8-00004) (PASS AND ADOPT) (DEFERRED FROM 6/17) Wilburn: Move adoption of the ordinance. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by O'Donnell. Um, ex-parte communication on this rezoning? Hayek: None. Bailey: Okay. Any other discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 49 ITEM 4 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. e) 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) (PASS AND ADOPT) (DEFERRED FROM 6/17) Wilburn: Move adoption of the ordinance. Wright: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Wright. Any ex-parte communication on this one? Further discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Page 50 ITEM 4 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. 1) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF GALWAY HILLS SUBDIVISION PARTS 10 & 11 IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB06-00003) (DEFERRED FROM 6/3 AND 6/17) Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. Hayek: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. Correia: Do we need to make a motion to include the (several talking)? Okay. Bailey: Okay. Dilkes: That's going to be done outside of the plat. (several responding) Correia: Okay. Bailey: Did you want to explain that for the public...in the discussion? Correia: We discussed in our work session having a speed table be at that point in the road connection where Willow Creek Trail passes over and separate the two areas of the park. Bailey: Okay. Hayek: And when does that then come up? Dilkes: Well, the...it's not part of the platting process. The City is going to do that as a traffic calming measure. Davidson: It'll be during the construction plans. We'll negotiate that with the developer. It will be at the City's expense. Hayek: Okay. Wright: I'd just like to add that...my office has been relocated, thanks to the flood, and I ride my bike over it, uh, speed table now, uh, couple times a day. It's remarkably effective. Champion: Well, that's great! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #4 Wright: I think it's just exactly the ticket to, uh, work at that intersection. Bailey: Okay. Any other discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. O'Donnell: So moved. Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell. Correia: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Correia. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. Page 51 This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #5 Page 52 ITEM 5 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 (CONT'D FROM 6/3 AND 6/17) Bailey: This is a public hearing. Public hearing is open. (bangs gavel) (laughter) Public hearing is closed. (bangs gavel) b) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) (DEFERRED FROM 6/3 AND 6/17) Champion: What are we supposed to do with this? Bailey: (several talking) Got a motion, Amy? Correia: No, `cause I thought I had a conflict on this earlier, so... Bailey: Okay. O'Donnell: Move first consideration. Dilkes: You need to make a motion for indefinite deferral. O'Donnell: Are we going to defer? Champion: Or should we just vote it down? Wright: No. (several talking) Bailey: We are going to, um... Dilkes: This is how we get rid of something. Champion: Oh, okay. O'Donnell: So we're just going to (mumbled and laughter) Bailey: And who made the motion to indefinitely defer? Champion: I think Michael did. O'Donnell: Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #5 Page 53 Champion: And I seconded it. Bailey: Okay, O'Donnell, and... Hayek: I will second that articulate, uh, motion. Bailey: It's been seconded. Okay. LTh, all those in favor say aye. Those opposed same sign. Item is deferred indefinitely. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #6 Page 54 ITEM 6 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 960 LONGFELLOW PLACE. a) PUBLIC HEARING (CONT'D FROM 6/17) Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open. Dilkes: There's been a small change, um, in the purchase price, from $147,000 to $145,000 and that is because the purchase price was contingent on the appraised value, and the appraisal came in at $145,000 instead of $147,000, and so then they'll be a reduction in the second mortgage amount of $2,000, as well. Champion: Great. Bailey: Okay. Public hearing is closed. (bangs gavel) b) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION (DEFERRED FROM 6/17) Correia: Move authorization of a conveyance of the single family home. Champion: Second. Bailey: Moved by Correia, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Champion: Good! Bailey: Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #10 Page 55 ITEM 10 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "HUMAN RIGHTS," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES" TO EXCEPT SMALL EMPLOYERS FROM DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS AND CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "ENFORCEMENT," TO INCREASE THE TIME PERIOD FOR FILING A DISCRIMINATION CLAIM. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) (DEFERRED FROM 6/17) Champion: Move first consideration. Bailey: Moved by Champion. Wright: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Wright. Discussion? Wright: It's a nice step backward (several talking) discrimination law. Champion: It is. That's the way it is. Correia: So this is required by... Dilkes: Well, it's required by the, um, Supreme Court's decision in the Baker case. Hayek: Lobby your legislator if you feel differently. Bailey: Yes. Perhaps it could go on our legislative priorities. Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #11 Page 56 ITEM 11 a CONSIDER A RESOLUTION CONCERNING MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION'S 2008 UPDATING OF RATES FOR BASIC CABLE SERVICES. (DEFERRED FROM 6/17) Correia: Move the resolution. Bailey: Moved by Correia. Hayek: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. Champion: (laughter) You're brave! O'Donnell: What can you do? Bailey: Discussion? Many of us will be paying seven more cents per month for basic cable. Okay. Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #11 Page 57 ITEM llb CONSIDER A RESOLUTION WAIVING FEES UNTIL JULY 1, 2009 FOR BUILDING, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL AND DEMOLITION PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 02-316 AND RESOLUTION NO. 03-183 AND ASSESSED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR STRUCTURES THAT HAVE BEEN PENETRATED BY FLOOD WATERS. Wilburn: So moved. Correia: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Correia. Discussion? Champion: Very generous thing the City is doing. Correia: Wonderful thing....um, my question is... O'Donnell: Avery good thing. Correia: ...can we, um, are there any provisions with FEMA that if...can we report this as an expense to be, through the recovery phase? I know we've been able to report staff time. Boothroy: Yeah, I was going to say, we're still doing staff time. So.. . Correia: Right, so, but I was wondering if there were, if this is considered a expense that we've incurred as a result of a natural disaster. (several talking) Lombardo: Opportunity costs are not reimbursable. Correia: Okay. So, will we...can we, um, keep track of what (mumbled) Boothroy: All the permits are tracked in the computer system, and so we can keep track of that information. So that you'll at least know what the final dollar amount is. Correia: Yeah, I mean, I think... Boothroy: Yeah, we can do that. Correia: ..report that as a the City's investment, or one of the City's investments (mumbled) as good thing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #11 Page 58 Bailey: I think that would be really good. Further discussion? Hayek: This is a good initial step. Bailey: Right. I think it's a good response to those who've been affected by the flood. Okay. Roll call. Item carries 7-0. Correia: I have a...can I just, I'm sorry I took this out of turn, but do we know if the City of Coralville or Johnson County? Bailey: Why don't you do that for Council Time, okay? Good question though. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #12 Page 59 ITEM 12 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS. (DEFERRED FROM 6/17) Bailey: At our work session last night, Connie, um, agreed to serve on the Seats Paratransit Advisory Committee, and I agreed to serve on the ECICOG committee. Um, I would entertain a motion to that effect. O'Donnell: So moved. Correia: So moved. Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Correia. Discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carries. Champion: And we should thank Regenia, otherwise they wouldn't have a number on that. O'Donnell: Well, it was unanimous. Bailey: I think as Matt put it, I conscripted myself. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #15 Page 60 ITEM 15 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Bailey: Let's start with Amy, since you have that pressing question. Correia: Okay. I was just wondering if we knew, um, similarly if Coralville and Johnson County would also be waiving that. (several talking) Um, and I just wanted to...I was at a meeting today where, um, I received information about a free information session for flood affected business owners in Johnson County. It will be Tuesday, July 1St, at 7:30 A.M. at the Holiday Inn Hotel and Convention Center on First Avenue in Coralville, exit 242. Um, there will be representatives from the U.S. Small Business Administration, FEMA, um, a disaster recovery tax technical team specialist through RMS McGladrey, a commercial insurance specialist, and um, Coralville, Kelly Hayworth, so this is free, um, and, um, American Bank and Trust is, uh, a lead organizer, um, of the event, and folks can contact Pam Passmore at 358-3400 by, um, Thursday to register. So, thanks to them for doing that. Bailey: Matt? Hayek: A couple of items. First, I want to note the passing of our dear friend Dee Norton, um, who played a huge role, uh, down here at City Hall and throughout the community, uh, for many, many years. Was on Parks and Rec in the mid-60's for several years. We have him to thank, and other people of course as well, for Hickory Hill and Mercer Park, which are treasured, uh, parks in town. He was one of the founding fathers of our bike trail system, uh, he served on the City Council in the mid to late 1990's. I knew him pretty well. Many of you did too, and I know I will miss him greatly. Um, second is some flood related business. Amy mentioned the business recovery workshop, uh, scheduled for July 1St. I really encourage businesses to take a look at it, um, there is going to be, uh, a fair amount of discussion and advice concerning tax and financial issues for affected businesses, um, I would also note the Chamber of Commerce, uh, held a meeting, uh, yesterday or the day before, um, the first of what should be several meetings, uh, to consider the appropriate role and cooperation between the private and the public sector concerning flood recovery efforts. They're looking for a, what they called a "public/private alliance," regarding flood issues, and I think that's a great idea. Uh, so we're going to continue that and I encourage any business that has been affected by the flood or is concerned about, uh, other businesses that have been affected by the flood, to contact the Chamber and...and be informed of upcoming meetings on that issue. Um, for those of you who are out there and have been affected by floods, if you're a homeowner, um, there's a set of information that City staff has put together and they've made an attempt to distribute it to everybody who...whose home was affected by the flood. It's an excellent packet. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #15 Page 61 There's a lot of good information in terms of getting a start on getting back to your house, seeking help, and...and other sources, and resources out there for you, and you can call the number for that, uh, 887-6202. There's another pamphlet shorter and sweeter but very well put together, uh, by our Economic Development office for businesses that have been affected by the flood, and I would encourage you to contact that same number or the Chamber of Commerce, uh, for that. Um, and then lastly, uh, just for the public's knowledge, uh, the Council has decided to, um, hold special meetings related to flood issues over the next several weeks, and perhaps beyond, um, so that we're dealing with those issues specifically and can reserve our other meetings for, um, the normal business of the City, and I...I look forward to that - I think we all do - um, this Council needs to make some short-term decisions, uh, we need to get a start on some of the longer term issues, and...and need to do what we can to support City staff as they do their work. Bailey: Ross? Wilburn: Nothing. O'Donnell: Nothing this evening. Bailey: Connie, tell us how your... Champion: Oh, yeah, I did make my appearance at the School Board. They took me right at 7:00 so I didn't, that's why I got here... Bailey: You weren't too tardy! Champion: ...wasn't too tardy. I...I did voice...I had two voices, one of the Council and the things we discussed about, um, kind of resentment about giving $100,000 of playground equipment when there are things we could do with that Federal money besides, um, that we like the idea of them getting a standardized playground and landscaping plan for every school, and then I just spoke more about how I viewed it as a great inequity, and it makes these schools more undesirable when they have kind of a bad image in town anyway. And I spoke as an advocate for underprivileged children in the schools that don't have great PTA's or have high turnovers, that parents simply don't have the money to provide playground equipment and landscaping, and...and in the past, that's what's been done. I kind of compared a few schools to them. I also pointed out things they know, that the Mark...not Mark Twain, Horace Mann and the City have a great partnership there in that park that's by that school. Uh, we talked a little bit back and forth about it. Uh, the School District is providing some pre- school equipment, um, for...for some different schools -Hills being one of them and I think Mark Twain also, uh, but they are going to look This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. # 15 Page 62 closely at this. They're going to try and develop a plan so there is some basic, uh, playground equipment at...at every school, and they actually admitted in one of the new schools, they did provide basic playground equipment, and that had not been done in the past. So, hopefully we got them thinking. I think they were probably thinking about it anyway, but it was, I'm glad I went. I've been meaning to go for two years, and now I got that done! (laughter) Bailey: Check it off your list! Thanks for doing that. Champion: Check it off my list! Wright: Thank you for getting that off your to-do list. Connie, that's really worthwhile. Champion: It is very worthwhile, and I think they listened. I mean, not only to the Council, but to the public, and they are just as concerned about it as we are now. Bailey: Good. Mike? Wright: Um, just a...an observation. On Monday when we still had quite a number of road closures and the driving around Iowa City was difficult, I was astonished at the number of bicycles out on the street. It was very heartening, um, and I hope we can keep that up. Bicycles are great transportation and not just for casual, fun riding. It's a terrific way to get around town, and I hope people will keep up what they started on Monday. The number of bikes in the street, uh, has increased dramatically. Bailey: Um, I just want to share with the Council that we have received a greeting and concern from Mayor Buol of Dubuque, and offers of help from Dubuque, to...in any flood recovery efforts, and they're a county of Des Moines and they were also affected by the flood, but he called me and also said the same. And then from Cathy Taylor of Tulsa, Oklahoma, sent us a letter that I will include in the packet, so um, people...I know that you've heard from people throughout the country, as well, and I think that that's been very heartening for all of us how Iowans have pulled together to help other cities, even as they've been affected in their communities. And, I think we've all said it, but I would also like to commend staff, uh, the Council, and the community for how we've worked together to deal with flood response, and now flood recovery issues, um, it's very clear in this community that we really care about each other and that we love Iowa City, and I think that if we go forward with that foundation through our meetings that we're having extra this month, um, if we go forward with that foundation of caring about one another and caring about the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008. #15 Page 63 community, I think that the tough decisions and the tough discussions that we have will only make us stronger as we come out on the other side of this flood. So, thanks to staff. I know you've all worked very hard and I see a lot of tired people around City Hall, and I really appreciate the work that you've done, and I really appreciate the way you've all been very involved with neighborhoods and communicating, um, in response to the flood. It's been, um, quite moving. So...thank you. All right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting of June 24, 2008.