Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-12-16 Transcription#3 Page 1 ITEM 3. PRESENTATION. a. University of Iowa Dance Marathon Bailey: (unable to hear person in audience) We need you at the microphone, actually, so we can actually hear you (laughter). Guckert: Okay, well, thank you all for letting us come here to speak here today about the University of Iowa Dance Marathon. My name is Katie Guckert and I'm the Executive Director for UI Dance Marathon. This is Colette Forcier. She's our Facilities Director, and we have Ryan Howard here as well. He's our Morale Director, so we're...uh, Ryan's going to give you a quick update about what Dance Marathon is and what we do, our mission, and a little bit about our history. Howard: Thank you, Katie. Uh, Dance Marathon is a, uh, student-lead philanthropic organization on campus. We, uh, we are ayear-round organization that throughout the year we raise financial and emotional support for the families and children of oncology patients at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. So throughout the year we do different fundraisers and family events for those kids over at the Hospital and we raise money for them. We just provide support for their family and then, um, at the end of the year it culminates with a, uh, big event in February, uh, a 24-hour event, where all the students that participate are all at the, uh, the Memorial Union, and for 24 hours everyone is on their feet and dancing and hanging out with the kids and the families for 24 hours just to show our support for them and uh, and their cause and, uh, for the kids that are battling through and what not, and um, so basically how it works is students, we go out and recruit throughout the year, uh, to students across the campus, and if students want to be a part of what we're doing, they sign up, they become a dancer, and throughout the year they're required to raise $425.00 to go to our cause, and then they...that's all they have to do, and then they come to our events, and then they come to the big event in February, and together collectively we all stand up and dance 24 hours with the families and kids, to show our support for them and to honor those children that have passed away and uh, it's a very unique event and it's really uplifting experience and it's just really cool to be a part of. Um, so, with that said, I'll pass it along to Colette and she'll talk about what happened last year, which is a big year for us, and then what we, what our goals are for this upcoming year, and what we're about to do. Forcier: Thanks, Ryan. Um, last year in February we had about 1,100 students, alumni, faculty, and staff, uh, community members come and dance at our event, and we also had about 400 volunteers and those ranged from students at the University, grad students, undergrad, um, community members and alumni, as well. Um, we also had about 650 family members attend our events, so those are the people who we're supporting, and they come and have a great time at our events, as well. Uh, last year, our goal was to reach a million dollars, and we reached our goal. We actually surpassed it by a little bit, as you can see on our tote-board there. Um, so that was a huge year for us. This year, however, our goal is to have 1,600 dancers This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #3 Page 2 at our event in February. So, we have about almost 800 dancers registered right now, so it's...(mumbled) dancers registered right now, so we're just trying to get them to raise their money and actually come to our event. So, we're well on our way to getting those 1,600 dancers there. Um, so to prepare, we have about 250 students on our leadership team and these students are working year-round to put together this event, and family events, and just all the things we do throughout the year. Um, one new thing that we started this past summer was the marathon...the marathon, and so we got a group of around 80 students, alumni, and community members to train throughout the summer together and run the marathon actually in October, the Chicago Marathon. Um, each of those people who ran the Marathon also pledged to raise $1,000 for our cause, so we're really excited and we're excited to keep that going through next year. Um, another program that we do is we, um, go to local businesses and those are community nights. So, we support local businesses by bringing in all of our participants and they usually donate back to us at the end of the night, so that's one way where we interact with the community here in Iowa City. Um, now Katie Guckert will go ahead and tell us how, um, you guys can help get involved. Guckert: All right. Well, I'd just like to add, we talked about how the million dollar mark was a big, uh, record for us last year and um, but I think beyond the financial support that we provide, the emotional support is something that's very unique to our organization, something that we hold very special, um, it's...the dancers have the opportunity to meet the families that they're supporting, and to date we support about 350 actual families that are being treated at the UI Children's Hospital, so throughout the year dancers have the opportunity to meet those families, to be in the hospital volunteering, um, to host play times, pizza parties, meals for those families, um, in addition we have a family rep program where dancers can be paired with a specific family to get to know them and to support them throughout their childhood journey. So, um, those are some unique programs that we have in our organization, as well as our allocations of our funding, um, we can chose specific programs and projects that we want to put our funding into throughout the year and we decide that twice a year. So some new programs that we have this year are the pharmacy co-pay program, where we, um, help pay for medications that our children need throughout their cancer treatment, um, renovating the hospital rooms, uh, just a general co-pay program for hospital bills and um, so on and so forth, so, those are some, uh, programs that we think are really neat and uh, we enjoy being able to decide where we put our money into. So, um, again, we just...we want everyone to know that you are invited to come to our event, um, to see it or to even participate in it. Our big 24-hour dance marathon event this year will be held February 6th and 7th, 2009, and that's a Friday to Saturday, so if you haven't been to the event, we really encourage you to just come and see it. It's truly amazing how it all comes together and to see everyone there. It's truly a community event, a lot of the families that are being treated are local families from Iowa City and from around Iowa. So, again, that's February 6th and 7th. You're invited to just come visit. We do have other ways that you can be involved, and we ask for your support in any way possible, and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #3 Page 3 you're welcome to come be a dancer. We've had um, anyone can dance really, not just UI students and we've had a lot of people in the community decided to dance for the full 24 hours. We have a spare dancer program where you can come dance for four hours, and we also have a volunteer program, where you can come volunteer your time, um, at our event to help set up and to help clean up. So, please visit our web site - dancemarathon.org - if you'd like to be a part of any of those programs or if you would like to come to our event or have any other further questions. So, thank you so much for allowing us to come here to talk to you about Dance Marathon. Are there any questions? Bailey: Thank you very much. It was very informative! Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #5 Page 4 ITEM 5. COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). Bailey: This is a time for members of the, um, community to comment on items that are not on tonight's agenda. If you would like to address the Council please approach the podium, state your name for the record, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Dennis: Hello. I'm MaryAnn Dennis and I'm from the Housing Fellowship, and hopefully you'll be glad to know that I'm not here asking for money. Um, I'm here to announce that the Iowa Finance Authority has awarded low-income housing tax credits for a project known as Aniston Village Limited Partnership, uh, this project consists of the new construction of 22 mostly single-family detached homes, uh, scattered at three different, uh, neighborhoods in Iowa City. Aniston Village is part of the first round of allocations that IFA will go through. The Finance Authority received 35 applications, and six projects received award of the credits. Of the 35 applications, Aniston Village was the only submitted application located in Johnson County. Of the awards, Aniston Village was the only application that was awarded, that was sponsored by anon-profit. The IFA has received six, uh, non-profit tax credit applications, and ours was the only one that was awarded. Of the, um, successful applications, Aniston Village is the only application that was awarded that was...that includes State of Iowa Home Funds. It's the only application that was successful that has planned to, uh, construct single-family homes and it's the only application that IFA has received that is located at scattered sites in any community in the state of Iowa. This tax credit award will result in $5,970,000 that will be invested, uh, through private equity investors into our community. The other sources of financing for Aniston Village are the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County, the City of Iowa City Home Funds, a loan from the City of Iowa City, uh, and a multi...and a loan from the IFA's Multi-Family Loan Program. We're very proud of this award. We work with a terrific team. Our development team includes, um, a great consultant, Rob Woodling from Foundations Development. Architect John Shaw. And Jeremy Hagen from Bradley and Riley. I'm not going to mention the entire team, but uh, please understand that there were a lot of folks that came together to plan this project. And I especially want to thank our staff at the Housing Fellowship, um, for a job very well done. The 22 homes will all have three bedrooms. They'll range in size from 1,200 to 1,800 square feet, and keep in mind that those are the covenants that are required with the sites that were available. Um, they'll all have attached garages. Our architect has drawn very nice homes and they will fit nicely into this, into all of the surrounding neighborhoods. Construction is planned to begin in September 09, and full lease-up is planned for June of 2011. All of the homes will be rented to households who...who have incomes at or below 60% of the area median income, and five of them will be targeted for families at or below 40% of the area median income. The monthly rents on these homes will be either $550 or $775. What that means is that these families, working families, will be able to afford to live in these homes without relying on This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #5 Page 5 any other kind of...of rental assistance. Um, I'd like to thank the Council for your support and the support of the Housing and Community Development Commission, and the City staff, um, and again, we're very proud, we're very thankful for your support. It's a very important part of what we do. Thank you very much. (several talking) Champion: Yeah! Congratulations! Did you say 22 houses? Dennis: Twenty-two. Wright: That's really great. Champion: Yeah, that's great! Good job. Bailey: We're glad to be a partner on this project. Nice work! Eastham: My name is Charlie Eastham, and I'm speaking as the President of the Housing Fellowship. I'm not going to talk about that particular project, although we are very satisfied and happy that we were able to get tax credits to fund this project and put the final financing in place, and we're very appreciative of the Council and other, uh, members of the City staffs' support. iJh, I just wanted to have an opportunity here to express my appreciation for City staff member Steve Long, who is the Community Development, uh, Coordinator. I believe that's Steve's, uh, position title. Uh, Iowa City owned a 16-unit, three-building apartment complex in the City of Coralville, which was damaged and completely destroyed actually by the flood of this past summer. Since that time, we have been working with various State agencies and the federal government, uh, to try to obtain, uh, loan releases or lien releases so we could sell the property or dispose of property...properly. We cannot repair it because the City of Coralville will not issue a building, uh, certificate to repair it and so we've been paying interest on our $800,000 plus mortgage on the property since July, with no income. That's not a good thing for anybody to be doing. Um, and we've been trying, as I said, we've been trying to work through the various agencies to get, uh, to get in a position to sell it. That process of getting to the position to sell it has been going agonizingly slowly, as have many other processes since July. Recently Steve Long was at a meeting, uh, with a number of State leaders, uh, and administrators at that meeting, and he got up on a morning and among his remarks he said to the, uh, to those administrators, what are you going to do about the Housing Fellowship's property in the city of Coralville. And pinned 'em down specifically. That afternoon we received a call from various administrators from the State and said, why don't you send us the paperwork, so that we can give you the lien releases you're seeking and we'll get this deal done. I'm really happy that Steve made...took that initiative and did that, and I hope the City Manager will be happy that Steve did that also. (laughter) Bailey: Thank you, Charlie! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #5 Page 6 Wright: That's a terrific story! (several commenting) Farris: Mayor, Council, Greg Farris from the Iowa City Airport Commission. Just wanted to give you a little update on the Airport and where we are, um, we finished up our construction projects, uh, for 2008, which is good as the winter has come upon us, uh, and started planning 2009. We've, uh, the...we've picked...we renewed our contract that we had with Earthtech, or ACOM, the company's been helping us with the federal plans, uh, that we have for rehabilitation of the runways. This next year we'll finish up the rehabilitation of, um, 7/25 and start on the 12/30 rehabilitation. That's being planned right now. And uh, we're looking at the expansion of the UI hangar, the operators, uh, performance lab, which'll go out for bid and hopefully expand that. We also have plans looking at...still looking at a corporate hangar to try to, as we removed one of the large hangars that was down there during the extension process of 7/25 is looking to replace that. Um, those are probably the largest ones that are coming up for the year and those start planning now, as we need to get the grants and some of the things in place by early January. Uh, one of the things recently that we did, uh, came up actually in the last meeting, uh, we have changed traffic patterns, or will change by March or the end of March, first part of April. The traffic patterns for Iowa City Airport and try to move them to what is deemed a right-hand pattern, which keeps most of the traffic to the south of, uh, the main part of Iowa City. Reasons came around that is we started the discussion with the Air Care helicopters coming in and out of, uh, Iowa City Airport, or coming in and out of the Hospital and just looking at possible conflicts with, uh, their traffic as that increases or...or as traffic at the Airport increases. Um, so we have put in place, it takes a little while for some of the publications to go out, but that hopefully will be towards, uh, the end of March, first part of April, they'll be...the traffic will stay more to the south, even though the...the runways aren't going anywhere, but still the...the majority of the traffic starts off in that area. I think that was everything, and I'm also here tonight. There's a resolution later on, uh, about changing the budgetary hours for the Airport Specialist, so I'm here if there's any questions on that when it comes up. Bailey: Thanks, Greg. Farris: Thanks. Bailey: Others wishing to speak at public comment? Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 7 ITEM 6. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. a) FOR A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF 179 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 420TH STREET, WEST OF TAFT AVENUE, AND FOR THE IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD AND TAFT AVENUE. (ANN08- 00001 AND ANN07-00001) 1. PUBLIC HEARING Bailey: This is a public hearing (bangs gavel). Public hearing is open. Davidson: Good evening, Madame Mayor and Members of Council. I'm Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning, City of Iowa City. Uh, if it's all right with you, Madame Mayor, we'll take Items b and c together in terms of my report to you, um, annexation and rezoning of the same property. (several talking) A and b -what did I say? (several commenting) I apologize. Items a and b. Bailey: Thank you. Davidson: Uh, Item a is the voluntary annexation, as you've indicated, Madame Mayor, and Item b is the proposed rezoning of that property. There are two parcels of property that are proposed to be annexed into the City of Iowa City. LJh, you see the larger one, the shaded...shading here, uh, this is the Veronica Prybil Estate, and then the small linear property here is the Iowa Interstate Railroad, uh, out to Taft Avenue. Uh, those are the two parcels. It's proposed, uh, to bring them into the City as I've indicated, uh, and have them zoned for future industrial development. IJh, they are currently, well, obviously the one parcel is currently farmland and the other is the existing railroad. Um, the intent is for this property to be, uh, annexed and purchased by the City of Iowa City, uh, and platted for industrial development. In terms of the annexation, uh, we consider, uh, voluntary annexations, uh, and evaluate them against certain criteria, and I'll run through those very quickly. iJh, the area under consideration falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary. We did...we have actually adjusted that boundary slightly in this area to take in the entire Veronica Prybil Estate, and that long-range planning boundary is basically the area where the City is committed to providing municipal utilities, and uh, we have committed to doing that, uh, for this entire annexation area. The second criteria is development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue burden, uh, on the City. There is definitely an identified need for industrial, uh, industrial property, uh, in Iowa City. I think you've heard Wendy Ford and I say that we basically have to turn prospects down now and in spite of the depressed economy, we do have people who are still interested in industrial property, uh, in...in our community, uh, in particular the wind power industry, um, we have This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 8 tried to do a little marketing with them and there appears to be some very significant interest there. So, we feel that there is a definite...a definite need here for which this will fulfill that. And then finally, control of the development is in the City's best interest. iJh, as I've indicated, this would be property not only controlled by virtue of being within the City, but that, uh, if...if the annexation is...is successful with it, we would be purchasing this property, as well. Um, we have typically either, um, the City has had a stake, if you go back to the 1960's in terms of industrial property being developed in this area, it's typically been through a partnership with a private entity. Um, and it's not out of the question that that could continue to be the case at some point in the future, but we are proposing, uh, to...to own and plat this ourselves, and sell it, uh, as industrial property. Uh, also wanted to mention that we allowed the County to weigh in on these, uh, annexations. I did meet with the Board of Supervisors and...and ran through everything with them. Uh, they understand that by virtue of our fringe area agreement they basically turned down development proposals in this area. Obviously something can be developed under the existing County's zoning, but a...a proposed rezoning to a higher intensity use. They...they want, they understand that it's appropriate for this to be in the City and served by the City. They concurred with the proposed annexation. In terms of the rezoning, we take a look at the Comprehensive Plan. Um, and...and we will be undertaking...ifynu look at the existing Comprehensive Plan for which we have not done a district plan yet, this proposal is consistent with what is in the current adopted Comprehensive Plan. We will be undertaking the southeast district plan, uh, you are familiar with the district plans -more specific, uh, identification of a plan for a specific sub-area and we will be doing this southeast area in the upcoming year. Um, and...and feel that what we believe will be the plan for this area is...is consistent with this, uh, there will eventually be a transition to the residential to the north, and that'll all be more fully developed in the, uh, southeast district plan. Um, the proposal for the rezoning is for the, uh, larger parcel here to be rezoned, uh, from County R to ID-I, and you'll remember the ID designation is one that we put on a property when it's brought into the city, if the utilities are not there for it to be ready to go, and we feel even though this will be owned by the City of Iowa City, that that's right to do in this instance, as well. Because the railroad property is not, uh, really dependent upon municipal utilities, we are proposing for that just to go to the industrial zoning, um, right up front. Uh, streets and traffic circulation, uh, this area will be served principally by 420th Street here, and then by Taft Avenue here. These are existing County, uh, unimproved roads, and when I met with the Board of Supervisors that was their principal concern, uh, the two secondary roads from the County and our Public Works Department have worked out an arrangement, which will evolve over time, for eventually the City to be completely responsible for the maintenance of these roads, but that's a phase-in as...as development occurs. Uh, I believe most of you are aware that the City has committed to the reconstruction of 420th Street, committed meaning in your budget there is money budgeted for that. We hope to acquire a Rise grant for that, as well. Taft Speedway is in the unfunded...Taft Speedway! Taft Avenue is in the unfunded years, uh, of the budget, but obviously eventually we'll This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 9 commit to that, as well. When the property is platted then we'll work out, uh, arrangements with the property owners, uh, the people who are going to develop the property in terms of the streets in this area, as well. Infrastructure, I mentioned, is something that we look at specifically with the rezoning and the City will commit to the infrastructure in this area. Environmentally sensitive areas, we also look at. There is a stream corridor, uh, Snider Creek, which runs approximately through here. Um, that is something that will be a platting issue, uh, making sure that the development occurs in a manner that is respectful of that, um, stream corridor. Uh, finally then just a couple of other loose ends. Um, one issue that did come up at the Planning and Zoning Commission, which was a comment that was received there was, if you look further to the west, the railroad has generally been the demarcation between the industrial property to the south and the residential property to the north, and there was a question raised about that and it's a good question. Um, and what we feel is that, you know, basically we need to change course a little bit. That railroad is an incredible asset in terms of industrial development. We want to take advantage of both sides of it in the platting of this property. We have met with the railroad. They're very excited about the prospect of additional business for the railroad in this area, and will work with us on extending rail spurs into the area, designing that appropriately, but we want to take advantage of both sides of the railroad, because basically it's an asset that we've lost if...if we don't take advantage of that now. Um, we also feel like that narrow right-of--way that is the railroad, is really not appropriate in terms of buffering, uh, residential, uh, property from the industrial property, as well as the noise of the railroad, um, we do receive some complaints, uh, in this neighborhood, uh, here and further to the west about the noise from the businesses, and we've tried to work specifically with some of the businesses. If we can establish a greenway along the...the creek corridor, um, that is a much better way to separate the residential and the industrial uses, and it's likely you'll see that come out of the southeast district plan. The other thing I wanted to mention is that there are several other property owners in this area that we have been working with for some time and we will continue to work with, uh, in particular the property to the north here, uh, we have been engaged in conversations about an easement through, uh, this property, which will connect this property to the north, uh, to 420th Street. LTh, those negotiations are still in...in process, but clearly, you know, we feel like we...we have a good partnership there with the property to the north, uh, both sides need to have their interests represented and that's what the attorneys are trying to...to work out at this team...time, not quite resolved, but I'm confident that we will get that resolved. Uh, any other question...or any questions about either the annexation or the rezoning? Bailey: Okay. Davidson: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 10 Bailey: Thank you. Others wishing to comment at the public hearing for the annexation? Okay (bangs gavel) public hearing is closed. 2. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION O'Donnell: Move the resolution. Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell. Correia: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Correia. Discussion? Wright: Good move for the City! O'Donnell: I think so. Bailey: Okay. Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 11 ITEM 6. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. b) REZONING APPROXIMATELY 179 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ADJACENT TO 420TH STREET, WEST OF TAFT AVENUE FROM COUNTY RESIDENTIAL (R) TO INTERIM DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL (ID-I) AND FOR THE IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD AND TAFT AVENUE FROM COUNTY RESIDENTIAL (R) TO GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (I1). (REZ07-00008 AND REZ08-00009) 1. PUBLIC HEARING Bailey: This is a public hearing (bangs gavel). Public hearing is open, and I'll ask people to disclose any ex parte communications regarding this rezoning. O'Donnell: None (several commenting) Bailey: Okay, and since we already heard staff presentation, I open it up to others who would wish to comment on the public hearing on the rezoning. Okay. Public hearing is closed (bangs gavel). 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Champion: Move first consideration. Hayek: Second. Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by Hayek. Discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7- 0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 12 ITEM 6. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. c) CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.69 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CAMP CARDINAL BOULEVARD AND KENNEDY PARKWAY FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL OFFICE (ID-CO1) TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO1) (REZ08-00010) 1. PUBLIC HEARING Bailey: This is a public hearing (bangs gavel). Public hearing is open, and before we hear the staff report, um, I'll just ask for ex parte communications so we can get that out of the way. Okay. Go ahead. Davidson: Thank you, Madame Mayor, uh, the proposal is to rezone property located, and I will attempt to orient you here. This is Camp Cardinal Boulevard and you can see here the future intersection of Kennedy Parkway, uh, here you see existing Kennedy Parkway in...in Cardinal Ridge Subdivision, uh, will be extended through, uh, to an intersection here. Um, with Camp Cardinal Boulevard, and this is approximately 2-acre property, uh, at the corner. LTh, this property is proposed for rezoning, uh, for a medical office building. The developer has indicated a Mercy Medical office building is what is proposed at this time. Uh, this...this property, and by the way I've got some slides here. This is the existing, um, undeveloped property. I think there's one more, there. Um, this property was originally part of a 462-acre,uh, area that was master-planned jointly, uh, by the City of Iowa City, City of Coralville, and Southgate Development Company. I think some of you are familiar with that development plan. Uh, that was in 2002. In August of 07, there was a 45-acre rezoning of this parcel...this area here, uh, which was primarily residential, 43 acres of it was residential, and then this was left with the ID zoning, uh, and basically was the two acres that was left over, uh, from that 45-acres that was considered in August of 07, and what is proposed is basically remove the ID designation, allow it to go forward for development. Uh, in terms of the proposed zoning, medical offices are permitted by right in the CO zone. CO-1 zone, excuse me. Um, in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, as I mentioned, the...the Clear Creek master plan basically is the guiding, uh, over- riding, uh, Comprehensive Plan for this area. Um, and...and lays out a very general concept for the area, which this is consistent, uh, consistent with. Um, there is a proposed Conditional Zoning Agreement because of the adjacency of this commercial parcel, uh, with the residential, and there's a concept plan here. You can see the location of these, uh, single-family lots, uh along Ryan Court, and then the proposal for the, uh, medical office building here. Um, because of that adjacency, we feel, uh, a Conditional Zoning Agreement is, uh, a good idea. In terms of the elements of the CZA then, uh, substantial compliance with the, uh, concept plan that you see here. Vehicular access, um, limited to as single-access This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 13 point here off of Ryan Court, and Michael, did you have a question you'd like to... Wright: I did have a question about that, Jeff, thank you. Um, I was just cunous m reading your recommendation that, uh, why is it going to be preferable to have that come off of Ryan Court in a residential area that's presumably more pedestrian than off of the arterial or the collector street? Davidson: Yeah, that's a very good question, and one that we worked with the...the developer on and...and scrutinized at the staff level. The...the issue that we had is, if I can get my arrow back here, is that for a, you know, this is an arterial intersection of an arterial with a, uh, a collector street here. Um, and it was an issue with respect to where that would be located, interfering with the turning movements at this intersection here. Um, we did determine that this was a better location in terms of just purely traffic flow, okay. Then the question became, well, all right, but what about the impact on the residential, uh, uses here. What we've done is, you can see is...is, um, the developer has located this driveway opposite this lot line, between lots 10 and 11 so that there won't be, um, headlights shining directly in windows during this time of year, uh, having it on the lot line eliminates the possibility for that, and that is a condition of the Conditional Zoning Agreement, uh, that this driveway be located here, uh, on that lot line. So we feel like we've tried to address both the traffic circulation elements of it, as well as the issues with the residential units being there. Correia: What about issues with lighting in the parking lot? Davidson: Yeah, that's also, um, addressed. The, uh, and...I believe, unless Bob corrects me here, that the...the, uh, the lighting standards, there aren't special lighting standards proposed, isn't that right, Bob. It's just the lighting standards that are, uh, part of the existing CO-1 zone, uh, I don't know the details of those. If you have a specific question, I'd be glad to...to find that, but it is, uh, the CO-1 zone is very frequently located between higher intensity commercial uses and residential uses. It's considered an appropriate...appropriate buffer zone. The Towncrest area is a perfect example of that, and so consequently, the lighting standards are such that without going to any special considerations, we feel they're adequate for what's proposed here. Uh, a couple of other things quickly - uh, the...the landscaping is addressed in the Conditional Zoning Agreement. There is a single monument sign, uh, that is proposed here. That will be the only, uh, signage allowed, other than signage on the fronts of these buildings, which cannot be illuminated, uh, and again then, the, you know, the...the, uh, the landscaping that you see here and the buffering is all called out in the Conditional Zoning Agreement, uh, as well as the building design elements being, uh, broken up and not just sort of a, uh, a single strip of...of commercial buildings, but broken up somewhat just to...to fit in better, uh, in this area. So, uh, are there any further questions, uh, forme about what's proposed here? Okay, thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 14 Bailey: Thank you. Siders: My name's Glenn Siders. I'm with Southgate Development Services. We are the applicant for this rezoning request. Jeff is correct. We have a purchase agreement with Mercy of Iowa City to sell them this lot. The only condition left on that purchase agreement is the approval of the rezoning of this property, uh, we have signed and turned in to the City the Conditional Zoning Agreement. Mercy Hospital has been with us every step of the way. They have no heartburn with this Conditional Zoning Agreement. Um, they have, uh, they have intentions of building facilities, uh, that they recently built. They just opened one in West Branch and within a year or so ago they opened one on Oakdale Boulevard in, uh, Coralville. This'll be very similar to that kind of complex, uh, we are real excited about having them there. We think that'll be great benefit to the neighborhood, and one asset that this has, uh, the commercial zoning's actually coming before the houses, uh, we intend to build all the houses on these lots ourselves and sell them. We're quite cognizant of where the drive is and the buffering requirements and so on and so forth, and we have designed homes on lots 10 and 11 to accommodate that drive quite easily. Bailey: Okay. Siders: With that, I would be happy to answer any questions. Bailey: Thank you, Glenn. Others wishing to comment at the public hearing? Okay, public hearing is closed (bangs gavel). 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Hayek: Move to conditionally rezone. Bailey: Okay. Correia: Second. Bailey: Moved by Hayek, seconded by Correia for first consideration. Discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 15 ITEM 6. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. d) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR HOUSEHOLD LIVING USES IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS (CB-10) ZONE. 1. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED FROM 11/18) Bailey: This is a public hearing (bangs gavel). Public hearing is open. Okay. Clark: Good evening. I'm Jeff Clark. Um, I just have a few comments to make about the, uh, amendment here. LJh, I guess my first question is is, uh, you know, I just, I don't know what it's going to do for Iowa City, um, it's not very straightforward, uh, there's not, you know, guarantees to, uh, be able to develop downtown, you know, the talk is to get parking in the ramps and, uh, or try to get, you know, little amounts of additional parking in the ramps to develop, um, the real...the real issue's not with the CB-10 zone. Uh, minimal amounts have...large developments have been put in the CB-10 zone that, uh, have not actually provided some type of parking. Um, the real...the real issue comes with essentially the CB-5 zone, which is not required to actually provide parking in that zone, um, you know, essentially you could, uh, you could take the building down on the corner of Court and Linn Street, and uh, there's essentially roughly 180 bedrooms and all they're providing on site is about 40 spaces of parking. Um, the parking impact fee is, uh, able to, uh, absorb those other parking stalls but yet they're not, the students are not given the opportunity, or people are not given the opportunity to rent those. Um, it...this amendment really is, it's going to dampen the development in the CB-10 zone. I mean, we have, uh, purchased, uh, a lot of properties lately, and uh, are finding that they're going to be very difficult to develop. Um, you know, I guess if there was a chance of putting an effective date on this, or something to allow...we have one project we'd like to do, um, we've spoken about it during the time when the four and five bedrooms were, uh, eliminated. Um, you know, if there's a way to put a effective date on it, to later next year. If we can get the one project in, that's probably more or less our issue. Um, I guess also if you were to look at, uh, possibly not approving this, there would be another manner to go about to look at a different amendment if you could incorporate developers and public to make an amendment that would work for everybody. Um, I guess other than that, if there's any questions, I'll answer 'em. Bailey: Thanks, Jeff. Clark: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Bailey: Others wishing to comment? Page 16 Champion: Jeff, are you talking about the, um, amount of unrelated people, are you talking about the parking problems? That are creating the problem for you. Clark: Well, I guess we're talking about the parking problem, what's...what's going on right here. Moen: Good evening. My name is Marc Moen, and um, I am very much in favor of what the staff and the City is trying to achieve, uh, by the amendment. LJh, the concern I have is whether or not we're really going to be able to get...there's a great unknown, and that's whether we're going to really be able to get the parking spots in the ramps that we're going to need to develop in-fill development. The larger developments, where you can provide parking on-site are not such a concern, but there are buildings downtown, one that we purchased several years ago, for the purpose of developing, which is just an example. It's the Wells Fargo building on the Ped Mall. It's a...it's not agood-looking building. It's one-story. Um, probably...I didn't look it up. It probably pays $15,000 a year in taxes now. If we develop it, it would pay maybe $150,000 a year in taxes. That's similar... Champion: When do you want to start? Moen: Yeah! It's similar to Vogel House, paid $7,000 a year in taxes when we bought it. It now pays over $100,000 a year in taxes. The concern I have is...and...and, if we can really get a commitment from the City to provide permanent parking in the ramps, that's agame-changer for us. For example on the Wells Fargo site. That'd be fantastic! Not only could we develop upscale apartments, we could actually probably develop condos on that site if we know that we have permanent parking available for those condos. People aren't going to buy condos if you...if you can't get permanent parking. It's just not going to happen. Um, we can, under the current zoning, we could easily develop that site as student housing, uh, and we could take the risk that we would or wouldn't get monthly parking passes in the ramps, but under this amendment, we're required to get parking. So, if we can't get the parking, number one, we're dead. We cannot develop that site unless we develop it as something other than residential, and that is not going to happen. I understand the need to develop offices downtown and commercial space, and I'm in favor of that, but a whole building of it financially won't work. So, on that site we would do a level of commercial, maybe a level of offices, and then high- end residential above it, if we know that we have the parking spaces. And so, anyway, what concerns me about it is, are we going to be able to get those spaces. The other thing that concerns me, if we want to do other projects in the future, where we're going to take a building down, and I don't know that there are any others that we would do that with, but um, it would be almost impossible to purchase a building for long-range development. Um, if you were going to buy it, and immediately develop it, it's one thing. You could go to the...to the City and find out if you're going to be able to get the parking spots. But, for example, the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 17 Wells Fargo building hasn't been developed yet because we're not in a position to develop it. I mean, you know, we're capable of only doing one project at a time, and we have to do, you know, we have to spread those projects out so how would you buy a building like Wells Fargo and not have any idea if five years down the road when you're going to develop it whether or not the parking would be available. So those are my concerns. I mean, if the City is really committed to...to spurring on development of high-end development, and not just necessarily high-end, but non-student development, I think this will work, but only if the City's committed to making those spots available in the ramps on a permanent basis. If they're temporary, if it's a year or two and then the City can take 'em back, it's not going to help anything. It's not going to change anything. Um, just one other thing. I...and Clarks have not asked me to comment on this, um, I know they've purchased a fair amount of property recently in the CB-10, and I know there's one project in particular that they're...they would really like to proceed with, which is the, I think the building they're talking about is the Northwest Mutual building, uh, on Washington Street, and I, you know, given the location of that building, and the...and the configuration of the site, I don't see that attracting non-student residents, and I don't know the legalities of this, but if there's some way -- it seems to me that given the...the cost of that building, and what they had planned to do with it, that's going to add a huge amount to the tax base of downtown, if they're allowed to develop that building. And I really hate to see that project go by the wayside, because of, I mean, they got caught right in the middle of this, just because of the timing, but it seems to me that just in the sense of fairness it would be...if there's a way to do it, that project ought to be allowed to go forward. So, those are my thoughts. Again, I'm all in favor of...of, uh, encouraging a diverse population living downtown. I think it's critical to the continued success of downtown, and I think if the City's really ready to commit permanent spots in the ramps for residential use, this will work, but it's going to have to require a permanent commitment, or commitment by the City of permanent parking spots in the ramps. And I don't...the ordinance, I mean, I've discussed it with staff. I don't know how clear it is, and I...I, we have no way. of knowing whether we'll be able to get those spots is just what concerns me. Thank you. Bailey: Thanks, Marc. Others wishing to comment at the public hearing? (bangs gavel) Public hearing is closed. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Wilburn: I move that the rule requiring that ordinances must be considered and voted on for passage at, uh, two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it must be finally passed be suspended. That first consideration and vote be waived, and that the ordinance be given second consideration and vote at this time. Wright: Second. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 18 Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Wright to collapse the first and second reading. Discussion? Okay. Karr: (mumbled) reading and give second. Bailey: Oh, first reading, give second. I'm sorry. Okay. Roll call. Wilburn: Uh, move second consideration. Champion: Are we going to discuss this or... Bailey: We need to move it to discuss it. So let's get it on the table. Champion: Oh, oh! Bailey: Okay. Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Wright, second consideration. Discussion? Connie? Champion: Thank you. Bailey: You're welcome! Champion: I was on time tonight. Bailey: You're doing a great job. Champion: Um, you know, I'm really concerned about the things that, uh, Jeff and Marc brought up, and that's been a concern of mine that we're going to make these projects impossible to do. Now I know in the presentation tonight, they go the Board of Adjustments and be forgiven the parking situation. But I agree with them - I don't think I'd want to put millions of dollars into a project if...I don't think I'm going to have parking (mumbled). I think we're creating a real bottle neck here for developers in that very tight little square block area, four-square block area, and I really have concerns about that. Wilburn: One of the things...couple things....I'm sorry. Were you done, Connie? Champion: Yeah, I'm done. Wilburn: A couple things that come to mind forme, um, one, um, concerns related to intention or belief the City's going to support, you know, higher-end development. I think over the last...um, the last six to eight years, uh, in particular the downtown area, we've taken Council's present and past, have taken steps to support the higher end development, if not we wouldn't seed the...the higher-rise buildings that we have downtown, um, and in terms of parking, well we've tried to address what we can with the University, when those situations have come up. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 19 ITh, we've got a new parking ramp downtown and despite some concerns related to parking and cars. We've made those considerations. We are also looking at some future, while there's still capacity, I believe, onto, um, the Transportation Center that we have downtown, and we've uh, taken steps at looking at further parking south of Burlington. So, I think the, there is recognition as an institution that, uh, while we do wish to have this mix downtown, that if there's acknowledgement that not everyone is going to be, uh, walking, biking that people will be having cars, I think that there's that recognition as an institution, as folks have seen downtown evolve. So...um, I think given that and the history with some of the exceptions that have been given, um, through the, uh, through the board, uh, that I'm comfortable with this at this time. Correia: I have...I have a question about one of the questions that was raised. Um, Jeff, so... Bailey: Question for staff? Correia: ...yes, question for staff. So, in this process with requesting a special exception for parking that will be provided in the City facility, would...if the City is saying, so let's say there's a project, the City says, 'Yes' we have...it needs ten spaces, 20 spaces, whatever, so it seems to me that if the City for the special exception to allow that development to occur and those residential units to be built and be in place, that those parking spots would need to be...remain available to that, those homes, as long as those homes are in use, you know, built. See what I'm saying? Miklo: Right. Wright: They're asking if the parking will be guaranteed. Correia: Guaranteed, but not...not, I mean, not the first question yet. I want to talk about that, but the second question, once the City agrees to, we have spaces, you can develop your building, as long as the building is built, and being occupied, those spaces, if they were initially granted, would remain for the duration of the building. Miklo: The language in the ordinance requires along-term lease. It's on a case-by-case basis, that lease or the terms of that lease would be negotiated between the City, the parking manager and...and the developer. And, um, you know, I can't give you what...what the terms of those leases are until someone actually comes forward, but long-term to me doesn't mean two or three years. It means several years. Correia: Well... Miklo: Um, and in the situation where it's...it's required parking to satisfy a zoning need, I would think we would want to also make that a renewable lease. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 20 Correia: Well, I mean, it would also seem to me that...maybe that just needs to be more clear. If we're saying it's required to be built, they've gotten those space through the City because it was allowed for a special exception, that as long as that building continues to exist, those spaces would be.. . Miklo: And those are the sorts of things that would be negotiated in the lease. Correia: But, I understand that it would be negotiated, but I mean, you could see there being dissatisfaction with a private developer to think, we'll have those...what would happen then -it's required for zoning. The City negotiates along-term lease of five years, and at the end of five years says we can't lease you those spaces any longer. Then are they required to find those spaces someplace else, I mean, they've already built the building. Miklo: In terms...I don't think the City would want to put either the developer or themselves in that position. I think it would need to be a more long-term lease, and a renewable lease. Correia: Well, and then...couldn't there just be a, I mean, wouldn't it just be a guarantee if the City initially gave those spaces, as long as the developer needed those spaces. They didn't develop their own lot so now they don't need that lot, those...do you know what I'm saying? (several talking) Right, ifd have to be permanent. I mean... Bailey: That's what it says! Leases have been or will be secured from the City. I mean... Correia: A lease doesn't...(several talking) Bailey: Long-term...long-term parking is referred to, but I mean... Miklo: ...the developer and the City are going to have to be comfortable with that lease in order to finalize it. O'Donnell: I'm uncomfortable with the term long-term. Dilkes: Eleanor? Did you have a comment? Or a clarification? I hope it's a clarification. Dilkes: I understand the...I understand Mr. Moen's concern. I...I think the way the ordinance reads, that... and what only makes sense is that in order for a special exception to be granted, you'd have to have a situation in place where there was long-term parking, parking...parking for the life of the building or whatever. Bailey: Right. Dilkes: But I don't think this ordinance is the place to put that requirement. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 21 Bailey: Okay. Dilkes: Because, in this ordinance, in terms of what is required, you want to have this, I think, have this flexibility. I think...I would think the developer would, but I...and I understand the need to get a commitment from the City as to what that would be, but I don't think this ordinance is the place for it. Hayek: What...what would happen to, um, a developer who entered into along-term lease with the City of ten or 20 years, and at the end of those ten or 20 years, the lease weren't renewed. What impact would that have on...on the ability to continue to have that structure be residential? Would it become non-conforming? Dilkes: Well, the terms of the special exception are going...would determine what the parking requirement was. And so it would depend on what the terms of the special exception were. If a special exception were granted, allowing... allowing that use for a period often years and that use was...and leases were secured to...for that ten years, then if after the end of the ten years the lease ended, there, they'd still be in compliance. It depends on what the terms of the special exception are. I think the way it's written now, it'll...it allows for that flexibility. Bailey: Okay. Further discussion? Hayek: Well, I, uh, I'm supportive of the parking requirements for the large-scale structures. I...we don't have the capacity -our system can't provide that parking. I think going back ten or 20, 30 years, um, the...our parking systems never contemplated that kind of demand. Um, I had concerns, uh, with respect to existing small...smaller structures, historic buildings, and existing structures that could be redeveloped, uh, and we raised those two or three weeks ago, um, and...and these revisions, I think, answer that and I think they'll help to promote the redevelopment of those structures in an effective way. That was a smart resolution to that. The concern I came down here tonight, um, with related to, um, either the redevelopment, meaning the razing of an existing structure or the building of a new structure on an empty lot, uh, where the physical footprint of that lot is so small, uh, as to impede the on-site establishment of parking, and what happens there. Um, that's what I...was hung up on coming down here, and there was a...there was a good discussion during our work session, um, a couple of hours ago that has answered my questions. Um, in that sort of situation where you've got a small footprint for a site, you can't place parking on site. You have to go to a City ramp, uh, which means parking has to be available, um, otherwise it becomes a hurdle that's insurmountable. And...and we don't want that, and that means that the City has got to have, uh, that parking available, or make it available in our municipal ramps, uh, going forward. Um, and...and when I'm...I'll support this, but it's with the understanding that...that staff and Council share a commitment to ensuring that availability going forward, because if we don't, we're going to have to revisit this. We'll see a chilling effect on...on the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 22 sort of development that we do want, and... and I...I'm sure that's no one's intention, um, but that's...you can't force, uh, someone, uh, who's developing a small site to go to the, uh, special exception process and...and secure parking in the City ramp if...if it's just not going to be available once the request is made. It defeats the purpose. Champion: Well that's...that's the problem I have with this ordinance, is somehow we've got to include that in here. I'm...Eleanor says that's not the place it should be, but I think people need to be comfortable that if they get a special exemption, they're going to be able to develop their building, because we're going to make sure we provide the parking for them. I mean, we're talking about a lot of money that people are willing to invest in the building, and you cannot sell a condominium without parking. I am sorry. I'd never buy one without parking! I don't care if you bike or ride a scooter. Probably you're going to have a car anyway. You just, 'cause you're not going to use it. Um, I...you know...I really can't support this, without some language in here...about the special exception. If you get the special exception because your footprint is too small to put underground parking or there's no space to put ground parking, that the City will guarantee that you'll be able to purchase the parking, or lease it or whatever they do. I...I don't want to stifle this development. We have two projects that are going to be very expensive, and people aren't going to put their life on the line to do it if they're not going to be able to use their building ten years later. Hayek: And I...I share that, Connie, and that's what I walked down here, uh, thinking I would not support this, but what I'm understanding is, I mean, first of all we would lose some of the parking spots you have to get for a small structure. By going down to .5 if you're an efficiency or cone-bedroom. Second, we...we have more capacity than we originally thought in our...in our structures, uh, presently, and we're building more, uh, moving forward, and third, we've got some flexibility with the existing spaces, in terms of how we allocate them. We can call them in. Staff, uh, the City can cancel certain leases that it has and make... Champion: Any permits! It can cancel any permit at any time. Hayek: I know, but...but, I mean, and so it remains to be seen whether there will be that cooperation and that assistance, and if there isn't, I think we're going to have to look at this again, but standing here... sitting here today, L ..I think that there is, and I think there's the ability to do that. Champion: But you and I aren't going to be here forever. I'm going to be here a very short time later. O'Donnell: And we're not investing the money! (laughter) Champion: And I'm not... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 23 Wright: Remember that, uh, whatever the term of the lease, uh, first of all, it's not going to be in the City's interest to refuse to renew a lease. That would just...that would be idiotic. Champion: ...done some stupid things! Wright: Sure we've done stupid things, but (laughter) uh, and you can bet if that, if for some reason that became an issue, that issue would come before whatever Council is here at the time that that lease ends. Um, I think this adds enough flexibility, um, in my mind it should essentially, if not in exact language, guarantee parking from the time something is developed forward, um, it would be in no one's interest for the City to develop, uh, essentially...limited leasing for parking for, uh, for residential buildings downtown. And the other thing that I have to come to, uh, remember is that, because a lot is located downtown doesn't mean that it's a good lot to have for residential development. Not every lot is. There are some lots that just are too small for any parking, um, they may not be great for development. We're sort of acting like everything downtown is going to be developed, right now. Champion: Oh, no! No. Wright: That's kind of the way the conversation's been.. . Champion: But no, that's why I have a problem with it. Because.. . Wright: So much of this is for south of Burlington too. Champion: Well, south of Burlington (several talking) south of Burlington is my concern. Those are bigger parcels of land. Um... Wright: I think we're getting hung up on the small parcels and not looking at the whole picture. Champion: Well, that's what I'm hung up on. O'Donnell: That's where the big problem is. Champion: That's where the problem is. Wright: I don't see that. Correia: I think this ordinance advances a vision that we've expressed that we have for downtown, and that we've heard from the community and that's, you know, in our downtown market niche analysis for creating an environment where we have, um, mixed residential population downtown. And, any time you change the way things have operated, they're going to be, it's going to be difficult, um, and painful This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 24 and, um, but I think that we believe that this is going to create a good change for our downtown Iowa City. Champion: Or, it might hinder the good change happening. I'm not, you know, any time there's space, if people are going to build, um, residential property, especially, uh, upper scale or more smaller residential residences - that's a strange thing -they're going to make sure that they can put parking on site, they're going to. Because that makes it much more sellable. Much more rentable. Frankly, I wouldn't buy a property without a parking place on site, but there are people who are more willing to do that than I am. So that's why I don't think this ordinance is even necessary, to say if you're going to build residential property you have to put a parking lot. I'm telling you, if they could do it they would do it. Because that's what makes the market...that's what controls the market. It's a very car-centered society. I don't care...I'm only talking about the downtown area. I agree with you. Not every one of those little buildings is going to be... able to be redeveloped into wonderful residential units. Because a lot of them are probably not going to be torn down, and there's not much room up above. But, I'm not going to support it. That's all, those are the only reasons. Bailey: Okay. Further discussion? Wilburn: In terms of capacity, I just want to give another reminder, um, Chauncey Swan, Tower Place and parking, Court Street Transportation Center, we've talked as part of the south of Burlington redevelopment another parking facility. I believe when we visited parking facilities, uh, before Joe left, there were, uh, possibly one, maybe two other facilities, so again, I think institutionally, um, that concept is embraced that we will need to make facilities and capacity available. Bailey: Right, and I'm supporting this, and it's surprising to me because I think one of the things that we are committing to are future parking structures. Not...I haven't typically been a fan of those, but if we want our downtown to develop in the way, in the mix with this residential mix with more office space, all the kinds of things we saw in this downtown study, we are going to have to be committed to additional facilities down...additional parking facilities downtown. So I think that we all realize that that's the path that we're starting out on tonight, for sure, if we pass this. Further... Dilkes: Can I just say one more thing? I think the way that this...this ordinance is written, it evidences a intention to have long-term parking in place, and if that is going to be, in order for the special exception to be granted, and but that can happen in a number of different ways. We don't know where the ramps will be in ten years. We don't know how many spaces we're going to have available in each ramp. You could imagine a number of lease situations where, you know, you're guaranteed in this ramp for ten years and the developer and City agree that you're, after that, you know, they may look at other options. The flexibility of this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 25 provision allows for that, but it certainly evidences an intent to make sure there's some kind of permanent parking being provided. Hayek: And that reminds me, my understanding is that our Transportation Department holds back, or maintains, a...a number of parking spaces for purposes of economic development. Bailey: Right. Hayek: And I think that would be an example of spaces that would be quite appropriate to, uh, bring to the table in connection, uh, with a project. But I, I mean, we're going to have to wait to see what happens. What we're going to hear, uh, from the players, uh, if this is not working out, and I don't think we'll be, I know I won't be happy about that. Bailey: Any other discussion? Okay. Let's do roll call. Item carries 5-2; O'Donnell and Champion in the negative. Karr: Madame Mayor, do you wish to at this time address a special meeting... Bailey: Oh, let us do that, yes. Karr: ...simply while the players... Bailey: Yes, that would be terrific! Calendars, people. Karr: There's...there was some discussion earlier at your work session about the potential for passing this, prior to January 2nd, moratorium ending. Bailey: Be good to tidy things up, yes. So, are we looking...this week? Next week? Karr: The next scheduled Council meeting that this would be considered would be January 6th at this time. Bailey: Okay, so let's...look at a special meeting. Wright: I didn't happen to bring a calendar, but.. . Bailey: You don't have your schedule memorized? Hayek: The closer we get to the, uh, to my wife's due date, the dicier my schedule becomes. Bailey: Okay, let us be aware... Hayek: Which by the way is the 24th. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #6 Page 26 Bailey: Shall we look at this week? Friday? Morning? Okay. Correia: What about Monday morning? 22nd? 8:00 A.M.? Bailey: Monday the 22nd at 8:00. Karr: 22nd, 8:00 A.M. Bailey: Okay. Champion: I guess you won't want me there. Bailey: Of course we want you there, Connie! Champion: There's definitely four of you. Karr: December 22nd, 8:00 A.M.? Hayek: That's fine, again (several talking) uh, no promises. Wright: Promise is that it'll be a short meeting. Bailey: I think she'll want him there. (laughter) Or maybe not. Okay. 22nd at 8:00 A.M. Thank you, Marian. Okay. Shall we move on? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #7 Page 27 ITEM 7. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BUDGETED POSITION AT THE AIRPORT BY CHANGING THE PERMANENT, PART-TIME POSITION OF AIRPORT OPERATIONS SPECIALIST FROM .6 FTE TO .75 FTE. Wright: Move the resolution. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wright, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Greg is here, so if you have questions, um, Greg, why don't you come and walk us through this a little bit. Farris: Um, yes, we're asking to...the position, when it was first, uh, put together was at .6 hours. When the Council (mumbled) they found out that, um, the time put in and the pay grade was, it wasn't an exempt employee, um, the Commission felt that, uh, we would like to see it as an exempt employee, and as time went on we saw that the increased amount of work that we wanted that position to do, you know, generally at the beginning it was more of a clerical position, but we wanted to pick up a couple of other roles, uh, from a supervising to insuring some things going on at the Airport, and felt that a .75 would, uh, first reach the exempt employee, uh, level, uh, pay-wise and for responsibilities, and then we felt that the overall responsibilities of it require those extra amount of time, looked from a budgeting standpoint to see if we could handle, uh, the movement, the increase in pay from that, and uh, believe we can, or have been able to (mumbled) pay for that position, and then we'll increase, uh, or I guess the responsibilities of the position will increase slightly too, because of that increased time. Correia: This won't...this increase would not require any additional General Fund dollars? Lombardo: That...that's correct. In our conversations with, uh, Greg we believe they can absorb this within their current budget, without additional appropriation from the General Fund. (several commenting) Bailey: I think we like hearing that. Okay, any other questions or discussion? Thanks, and thanks for being here for that. All right. Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #10 Page 28 ITEM 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF VACANCIES. Bailey: Um, I'm assuming re-advertise the Senior Center Commission and the Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment. We also have the previously announced Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment, one vacancy to fill an unexpired term. Three males and zero females currently serve. The Airport Zoning Commission, one vacancy to fill asix-year term. Three males and zero females currently serve. Um, the Parks and Recreation Commission, we have a vacancy, one vacancy, to fill unexpired term, uh, five males and one female currently serve. Those applications must be received by 5:00 P.M., Wednesday, December 31st. We have, let's see, um, new, um, Youth Advisory... Karr: You're simply removing the City High for the Youth Advisory. Bailey: Okay, thank you. New, uh, Youth Advisory Commission, one person from Tate High and one person at-large. One male and three females currently serve. Um, applicants for the Youth Advisory Commission must be received by 5:00 P.M., Wednesday, January 21st, 2009. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008. #12 Page 29 ITEM 12. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Bailey: City Council information, and we'll start with, uh, Council Member Wright. Wright: I had nothing this week. Bailey: Okay. Ms. Champion? Champion: Nothing. It's cold! Bailey: Thanks for noting that (laughter). O'Donnell: Nothing. Bailey: Mr. Wilburn? Wilburn: Everyone have a good holiday season, and happy new year. Bailey: Okay. Hayek: Nothing tonight. Correia: Nothing. Bailey: Oh! Wow, it's a quiet night. Um, we did get a letter from Deb Briggs and I want to wish her every success in her new position at the Iowa Finance Authority. I think Deb has done a great job with the City, and I...we will miss, I will miss working with her. And, um, I just want to wish everybody happy holidays, and safe holidays. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of December 16, 2008.