HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-10 Transcription#2 Page 1
ITEM 2. MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS.
a) Special Olympics Month -March 2009
Bailey: (reads proclamation)
Rossi: We have quite a group here tonight! I'm Joyce Rossi with the University
of Iowa and I'm also a former Board Member with Special Olympics, uh,
been involved for probably over 17 years. Sergeant and Eunice Shriver
founded Special Olympics in 1968 with less than 100 participants, and
Special Olympics Iowa has served over 13,000 athletes from across the
state of Iowa, in representing all 99 counties. Uh, this is kind of special
for us. This weekend is our mid-winter tournament that's held here at the
Iowa Fieldhouse. If you'd like to come over and watch it would be
wonderful. They're participating in basketball, basketball skills,
cheerleading, gymnastics, and power lifting. We're very proud of the fact
that once our athletes arrive in Iowa City, they bear no more expenses
through our fundraising efforts. We have aSponsor-an-Athlete campaign,
which our area businesses contribute to, and all of those monies do stay
here in Iowa City to help with overnight accommodations and food and
lodging. We have a Polar Plunge, uh, that is also another fundraising
event, which I participate in and left you all a little note up there and if
you'd...anyone would like to join me you're really more than welcome
(laughter). March 28th at the Coralville Reservoir this year. Last year we
raised about $30,000 in that. Uh, we also have a golf tournament in June,
which we raise about $20,000 in that. It takes about $60,000 to $70,000 to
house over a thousand athletes that come to here to participate in the mid-
winter tournament. Um, Iowa City gives our athletes the recognition they
so deserve by making this Special Olympics' Month. If you'd bear with
me, I would like to announce all of our athletes that are here this evening:
Brian Bates is a former Board Member, former athlete; now he's a coach
with the school systems. We have Shelly Wade, Christine Watkins,
Melissa Anderson, Mary Ruth Arensdorf, Eliana Freidman, Jennifer
Foster, Deb Burky, Mark Kay Eckermann, Geoffrey Hacker, Mary
Hansen, Dree Jaquese, Glen Jensen, Joy Perrin, Julia Baumbaugh, Charlie
Atkins, Megan, Jill Michlick, Diane Maravec, Kelly Peterson, Jean
Saxton, and Laura Wagner. Um, again, we would just like to thank you
for making the proclamation as March Special Olympics' Month, and we
would like to ask you to repeat the Special Olympics' oath with us. The
oath is: let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.
Thank you very much. (applause) (several talking at once)
Bailey: She didn't know how many would come down tonight, but it was quite a
crowd! It's great!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#2 Page 2
ITEM 2. MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS.
b) Meals on Wheels Day -March 18, 2009
Bailey: (reads proclamation)
Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is Mary Wieman, Executive Director.
(applause)
Bailey: My friend Mary! (laughter) Good to see you!
Wieman: I would like to say that was a hard act to follow, um, and I'd like to invite
anyone here over the age of 60 to stand with me and accept the
proclamation. Darn! No takers! (laughter) All right, we'll be looking for
you! That Elder Services is the community's meals on wheels and senior
meals provider. We do the majority of the 600 meals that we serve every
day, out of our flagship kitchen which is at the Senior Center, so we do it
in partnership, every day, with the City of Iowa City, so we thank you for
the, uh, this proclamation, and we thank Councilman Wright for being
available to deliver meals on March 18th, but we could not do our
important and vital work without your support, so thank you very much
for that!
Bailey: Thanks, Mary.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#3 Page 3
ITEM 3 OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARDS -
Grant Wood Elementary
Bailey: Would the students from Grant Wood Elementary please come forward.
Good evening. We're glad you're here, and looking forward to hearing
your statements that you will describe why you're getting your citizenship
awards. And I've also asked Tyler Gunn to help me in presenting these
awards to you, cause Tyler's a little bit closer to your ages, and I thought
that that would be kind of nicer.
Gunn: Well, thank you, Mayor Bailey. My name's Tyler Gunn, and it's an honor
forme to help present this award because I too am a student, and uh, I
understand how hard it can be sometimes, still get good grades but yet
help people in your school, extracurricular activities and such. We're all
excited to hear about it, so if you'd please tell us a bit about what you're
doing.
Leuang: Hi, my name is Kody Leuang and I go to Grant Wood and I am in 6th
grade, and my teacher is Miss Teale. During my recess time on Fridays I
help (mumbled). Outside and inside of school I go to orchestra. I am in
recycling at my...I am my class (mumbled). I would like to say thanks to
my orchestra teacher Miss Tschantz and my current teacher Miss Teale for
doing an outstanding job, and with their work for nominating me for this
award...award. I still want to work up to another award, and I would like
to give a special thanks to the City Council for giving me this award.
(applause)
Cronbaugh: Hi, my name is Jordan Cronbaugh. Igo to Grant Wood Elementary
School and I'm in Mr. Glenn's 6th grade class. I first helped the
community when I joined Girl Scouts in kindergarten. Over the years
we've cleaned up our local wetlands and bike paths, brought in food to our
local food banks, donated toys and clothes to Domestic Violence shelter,
collected stuffed animals for Sheriffs Department, and gathered materials
for (mumbled). I also think it's important to be an example for my
community and school. I served for three years in a row as my class
President of the Student Council, and I'm honored to be my class bank
officer. I also help the little kids (mumbled). I would like to thank the
City Council for presenting me with this award. (applause)
Robinson: Hi, my name is Tyla Robinson. Igo to Grant Wood Elementary. In
school I am involved in book buddies and after school mentoring. Out of
school I am involved in a community youth group. I want to thank my
teacher Miss Brock for nominating me for this award. I would like to
thank my mom and dad for letting me go to the school and teaching me to
be respectful. (applause)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#3
Page 4
Gunn: Let me go ahead and read your certificate. For your outstanding qualities
of leadership within Grant Wood Elementary, as well as the community,
and for your sense of responsibility and helpfulness to others, we
recognize you as an Outstanding Student Citizen. Your community is
proud of you. Presented to you by the Iowa City City Council.
Congratulations! (applause)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6
Page 5
ITEM 6. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
A. CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 18.58
ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF ROHRET
ROAD FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (ID-RS) TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, 44.29 ACRES FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL
(RR-1) TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(RS-5) AND 79.27 ACRES FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(OPD-5). (REZ08-00011)
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Bailey: This is a public hearing (bangs gavel). Public hearing is open, and we'll
first start with staff report.
Davidson: Good evening, Madame Mayor, and Members of Council. I'm Jeff
Davidson, Planning Director for the City. I also have Bob Miklo, Senior
Planner, with me this evening. We'll make a brief presentation prior to
receiving public comment. Uh, this is an application from S&J
Development, of Davenport, Iowa, uh, for rezoning of, uh, 82.3 acres, a
portion from ID-RS to RS-5, and a portion from RR-1 to OPDH-5, and
then a preliminary plat for 170-lot residential subdivision on the
aforementioned 82.3 acres. Uh, the plat that is under consideration would
be parts 3 through 8 of Country Club Estates, parts 1 and 2, uh, have
already been platted. Uh, the, uh, let's see, I'll bring up some figures here.
LTh, here you see in the shaded area the, uh, proposed parts 3 through 8.
While we have this slide up then, uh, just real quickly - to the north is the,
uh, County Poor Farm property, and I think if I skip ahead...uh, there is
the plan that the Board of Supervisors have adopted, uh, for, uh, the...the
parcel of property there. Um, what we've tried to do is work with the
developer to ensure that the proposed subdivision would be consistent
with this plan, uh, you can see in the blue area there is what will in the
future at some point be a, uh, fairly substantial regional park in Iowa City.
Uh, the yellow area there is, uh, potentially, I mean, it would require
subsequent decision making by the Board of Supervisors, but potentially a
low-density resident...would be sold for low-density residential
development, basically as a way to generate revenue to do the other things
on the property that they hope to be able to do. That's at least the theory
behind having the yellow area there, for low-density residential. There's
also a diagram here which shows how the proposed trail system in the
area, uh, would hook into the regional trail system. You can see that there
is a...a trail that extends down from the Willow Creek Trail into the
subdivision, uh, and the, uh, the actual Poor Farm property, uh, to the
upper left there, which is identified as 15-acres Poor Farm is supposed to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6
Page 6
be in the future the, uh, the north trail head for the Willow Creek Trail,
um, which would then be extended down, underneath Highway 218, to
where it hooks into the existing trail that's there currently. Um...a little bit
of background, let's see...if I skip...well, let's stay with this slide right
here. You can see, uh, portion, uh, that's proposed from a rezoning from
RR-1 to RS-5, and then ID-RS to RS-5, um, the...the original subdivision
here was, uh, Southwest Estates, and think if I...here, you can see to
the...to the extreme right of the proposed plat here are the large lots that
were at least an acre in size, uh, that were originally platted as Southwest
Estates, and this was at a time when basically the ridge line between
watersheds was right in this area, and the City Council at that time was not
willing to commit to the extension of sanitary sewer outside of the
watershed boundary that we could serve by gravity flow, and that was the
reason why the Southwest Estates subdivision did evolve from, uh, the
area which has the large lots that are on septic systems, and the smaller
lots that are on City sewer, it was due to that watershed boundary. Now
since that time, there has been, uh, a decision made by the Johnson County
Council of Governments on the alignment for the extension of Highway
965, and basically it will extend over the interstate and down the
alignment of Hurt Road and then along the, uh, east boundary of the
Landfill, and when that decision was made by JCCOG, the City Council
then at that time committed to serving the area which is under your
consideration this evening, with, uh, a series of lift stations and lifting it
to...to the watershed that we can then serve by gravity flow, and that is
why, uh, we feel this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that
decision making that was made by the City Council in conjunction with
that JCCOG decision on the 965 extension. Um, as I mentioned then, 170
lots are proposed. There are also 3 outlots...let's see if I can get an arrow
to come up here. We have outlot C and outlot A, uh, and these outlots are
platted with, uh, some environmental features in mind, and Bob will
elaborate on those for you. There's also outlot B, right here, which will be
dedicated and fulfill the parkland dedication obligation that the subdivider
has, uh, there's also an area directly to the north, here, which is the site for
a water storage tank which the City has already purchased and at some
point in the future we'll have a water storage tank there. So those two
parcels could be combined then, uh, into a future City park. Uh, this is on
the edge of the subdivision and there was some discussion of that, but
eventually, remember, will be going out to that east boundary of the
Landfill, so this will be a more centrally located park, uh, to other
subdivisions that will occur further to the west. Uh, the Parks and
Recreation Commission does recommend the acceptance of outlot B. Um,
now going to have Bob take you through...there was a lot of good
discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission, and Bob is going to
take you through some issues pertaining to the subdivision design,
environmental features, traffic and street design, and phasing of the
subdivision. Uh, and what is recommended for your consideration this
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 7
evening is a conditional rezoning, and Bob will also highlight what those
proposed conditions are.
Miklo: As, uh, Jeff indicated, there was quite a bit of discussion at the Planning
and Zoning Commission about, um, Rohret Road in this area and just in
general traffic circulation and what the future street network will be. Um,
for some time the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council has
been concerned about, uh, growth in this area, that up until now it's all fed
into Phoenix Drive, so that when, um, Country Club Estates part 1 and 2
were platted, the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission basically
said that there should be no further development in this area until there's a
second means of access through this neighborhood that does not rely on
Phoenix Drive. Uh, for that reason, the plat includes Lakeshore Drive
connecting, uh, in County Club Estates part 1, down to Rohret Road, and
that will provide some relief for Phoenix Drive and, uh, direct traffic from
this neighborhood, uh, to Rohret Road, rather than through the existing
neighborhood. That's important for just general traffic, as well as the
construction traffic that's going to be associated with the construction of
the homes in this area. For that reason, uh, the phasing plan that's part of
the Conditional Zoning Agreement requires that this area, Phase 1, be built
first so that Phoenix, or excuse me, Lakeshore Drive is completed before
there's any other development in the neighborhood. Um, another issue of
concern with this, uh, subdivision for a number of years has been that
there is, as Jeff noted, a lack of sewer service, and there's also, uh, a
condition of Rohret Road. It's...it's achip-sealed road so it's not really
suitable for urban development, and that's one of the reasons this area is
zoned ID, or Interim Development, which is basically a holding zone, and
uh, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval
of, uh, the rezoning of the southern part of Country Club Estates, the part
that accesses Rohret Road, only if there's a commitment to build Rohret
Road up to City standards, um, and the Capital Improvements Plan that
you're going to be considering as part of your budget tonight does include
Rohret Road in the year 2015, and we feel this is necessary in order for,
uh, this development to go forward. Um, or the southern portion of this
development to go forward. Another, um, condition of the zoning
agreement is the phasing plan that puts phase 7 which is here, the western
part of the development, and phase 8, the portion immediately adjacent to
Rohret Road, it requires that those be the last phases to be built, with the
thinking being by the time the other parts of the subdivision are built out,
uh, Rohret Road is more likely to be in place, so that, uh, there is an
alternative route for...for some of the vehicles in this neighborhood, that
they're not all having to go back to Lakeshore Drive, and also to assure
that the road construction doesn't disrupt the neighborhood or the lots
immediately adjacent to it. So, that again is a condition of the, uh, the
zoning agreement. Um the other reason for the, uh, the interim and rural
residential zoning is, uh, the lack of sanitary sewer. This subdivision, or
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6
Page 8
this developer, addresses that by putting a lift station in this area, which
will, uh, lift the...the sewage from the southern portion of the
development into the gravity, uh, flow system, so it can be, uh, treated by
the...by the City. Um, so that takes care of one of the other, uh,
conditions noted in the Conditional Zoning Agreement. Also like to note
that our Public Works office told me today that there needs to be a
temporary road, uh, to provide access to this lift station that's not yet noted
on the...on the preliminary plat, so before you vote on the plat in a few
weeks, that road is going to have to be shown on the...on the preliminary.
Another concern in this neighborhood is, uh, Slothower Road and I'll show
you a photograph of this. This is the portion of Slothower Road that
travels from Melrose Avenue to the south, and you can see it's quite
narrow. I think it's about 12 feet wide, so it's really not suitable for, um,
urban development to occur on it. Um, the road is...Slothower Road is
right in this...this vicinity. So, we are recommending with the, uh, with
this development that Slothower Road be, the new subdivision entrance to
Slothower Road be barricaded until such time that that road is upgraded,
and that would occur when the development to the west, when there's
more development to the west. So, temporarily there will be only access
to Rohret Road, until that occurs. The southern portion of Slothower
Road...the area down here, is basically a....a road that's been abandoned
by the County. It receives no maintenance and... and is really not
passable. Um, we're concerned that the right-of--way is still in place, and
we wouldn't want to see that road reopened by the adjacent property
owner or...or, uh, working with the County to reopen it. So another
condition of this, uh, rezoning recommendation is that Slothower Road be
vacated in this area to avoid double-fronting lots. One of the things we
don't want to see if, uh, a lot with street frontage on...on two sides. Our
subdivision regulations really discourage that. Uh, so a condition of the
rezoning is that, uh, this area not be preliminarily platted until that road is
indeed vacated by the County. Um, if it isn't vacated by the County, uh,
there would be an opportunity to redesign this part of the subdivision
to...to do without the road. Another issue of concern is that Lake, uh,
Lakeshore Drive will eventually connect to Melrose, but our
recommendation is that it not connect directly, that it not be a direct route,
that it "T" into an east-west street on the County, um, land and then
connect to Slothower another road to provide a, uh, north-south, um,
connection between this area, but not a direct connection -more
circuitous. Similar to what was designed in the Galway Hills subdivision
with Dublin Drive and Shannon Drive. Uh, there...at Plarming and
Zoning Commission there was a concern, um, from the neighboring
property owners to the south about the improvement of Rohret Road, and
that the City would be improving it to arterial street standards, which is
typically a 100-foot right-of--way. Uh, in this case we have only 33 feet of
right-of--way easement on the south side of the road, and then the
developer would be dedicating 50 feet on the...on the north side. Uh,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6
Page 9
there was a request that the road be shifted 17 feet to the north to make up
for the...for the deficit. Um, we typically do not shift arterial streets,
depending on ownership patterns that could result in some real kinks in
our roadway system, um, and our Public Works office has, um, indicated
that when Rohret Road east of this area, back to Mormon Trek Boulevard
was improved a number of years ago, we were able to do that in the 33-
foot, uh, right-of--way, um, and that's very few trees were taken out as part
of that construction project. We were told at P&Z that subsequently some
trees died afterwards, whether that was related to the road work or not,
we...we don't know, but in any event, it does look like we can build the
road, uh, without acquiring additional right-of--way to the south. We may
have to require some construction easements in that area. As noted, there
are, uh, there's a significant area of wetlands through the center of the
development, and that's associated with the stream corridor that runs
through the area. I think I have a slide of that. This is looking from
Southwest Estates to the west, and you can see, uh, this channel of the, uh,
of the stream, and there's also a wetland associated with that. The wetland
is currently not in the greatest condition, um, and as part of this, uh,
subdivision, what's being proposed is that, uh, a finger of wetland along
Lakeshore Drive be removed and they would compensate by building
additional wetland in outlot C, and also improving the wetland that's there,
and uh, we are recommending approval of that plan, subsequent to Army
Corps of Engineer's approval, uh, and that will come at a later date. If for
some reason the Army Corps of Engineers does not approve, uh, this
wetland, uh, plan then this subdivision would have to be redesigned, and
that's spelled out in the Conditional Zoning Agreement. There's also a
small wetland on the east side of the development. Normally there's a
100-foot buffer required, but the code does allow for reduction of that
buffer, if the wetland meets certain criteria, such as not having, uh,
endangered species or, uh, an abundance of wetland, uh, plants or forest or
stream corridor, and that is the case here, so we are recommending that
that buffer be reduced to 25-feet, as requested by the applicant. One of the
conditions of the...of the zoning agreement is that the homeowners'
association be responsible for the maintenance of this wetland, and that
there be a fee structure put in place or that's what we would anticipate to
assure that it is maintained over time and that it does not deteriorate. One
of the other concerns expressed by the neighborhood was drainage in this
area and our engineers looked at that quite closely. Most of the
subdivision will drain into a, uh, a constructed wetland into a storm water
facility, uh, and again, that has to be approved by the Corps of Engineers.
A small portion of, uh, the subdivision does drain to the, uh, southwest
and into a...a drainage ditch on Rohret Road, and our engineers felt that,
um, they were comfortable with that...that design. Be happy to try to
answer any questions, uh, before you take public testimony.
Bailey: Are there questions for...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6
Page 10
Wilburn: I have a question related to...that, um, the portion related to, um, in terms
of the maintenance, the wetland, uh, with the homeowners' association,
um, and L ..I don't know if this is a question for you, Eleanor, or in terms
of...how the, if we have any control over how the developer, uh,
communicates that to...whatever that maintenance means, whether it's a
fee or whatever, to the future, uh, owners in the...my, I'm thinking of, uh,
times in the past where there's been some issue brought to the Council,
whether it was continuation, further phasing in of a, uh, of a development,
and people who've been part of a homeowners' association were either
surprised by fees, or there was a sidewalk or something that wasn't taken
care of and that...it seems to be a point of contention so what...what do
we have the ability to, uh, mandate, guarantee, beyond this?
Dilkes: Well, when we do the platting, we will assure that that structure is set up
as part of the, um, platting process. And those documents then are
recorded and show up at anybody's abstract when they purchase the
property. In addition, if it's part of the Conditional Zoning Agreement it
would be a zoning violation if there...if it wasn't, um, complied with.
Wilburn: Okay, but it's...where that enforcement and communication would happen
to...the owner would be in the...
Dilkes: It would be a matter of record, they would see it in their title.
Wilburn: In their title, okay, all right.
Dilkes: Documents, their attorney would likely call it out for them.
Wilburn: Okay, all right. Thank you.
Bailey: Any other questions for Bob or Jeff?
Wright: ...one question, Bob, we just passed our award-winning subdivision
ordinance a few months ago, and one of the things we discouraged in that
was cul-de-sacs and the first thing I saw there was cul-de-sacs right along
Rohret Road.
Miklo: Actually when we first saw this subdivision it had quite a few more cul-
de-sacs, uh, as you noted, there's really only two...
Wright: Right.
Miklo: ...and the subdivision regulations allow them where there really isn't a
good alternative, and this case Rohret Road being an arterial street, we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 11
want to minimize the number of access points, uh, and that's why these,
uh, these two cul-de-sacs are...are there.
Wright: How many homes are we talking about per acre, roughly, out here?
Miklo: I believe there are 1701ots through the whole subdivision, and uh, I think
it turns out to around two per acre, um, I'd have to sit down and calculate
that. I don't have...
Bailey: Other questions?
Hayek: Can you flush out a little bit more of the, uh, the issue of the south side of
Rohret Road and the 17 feet that, as I understand it, uh, we do not intend
to use for extension west?
Miklo: Normally an arterial street would require 100 feet right-of--way, 50 feet to
the north side and 50 feet to the south side. In this case we only have an
easement for 33 feet to the south side, which was also the case farther to
the east where the City rebuilt Rohret Road. Um, and our Public Works
department reviewed those plans and said, well, we did not acquire
additional right-of--way there. We won't need to here, especially given the
concerns of some of the, uh, homeowners to the south, um, so they believe
that the plan to widen the street can be done with 50 feet on the north side
and the existing 33 feet on the south. We may have to acquire some, um,
construction, temporary construction easements, uh, in that area so the
south for some grading, uh, but the extent of that isn't known because we
don't have an actual design for the construction of Rohret Road.
Hayek: Would that construction easement get into the 17 foot (both talking)
Miklo: It most likely would, yes.
Correia: I had a question, um, to the process of this rezoning. Was there any
discussion of a higher density zone?
Miklo: Yeah, actually there was quite a bit of discussion, um, this subdivision
first came to the Planning and Zoning Commission three or four years ago,
and at the time the applicant was seeking to reduce, to further reduce the
wetland buffer along the stream corridor, uh, but that was not permitted by
our ordinance. It didn't meet the criteria for a wetland buffer reduction,
uh, the Planning and Zoning Commission suggested at the time that, you
know, if...in order to fulfill the...the full buffer requirements, our
ordinance does allow clustering a development, and there would be the
possibility of doing some townhouses or some small multi-family, uh,
development in the southern portion of the...of the development. And in
fact our Comprehensive Plan, Southwest District Plan, opens up that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 12
possibility, says if it's designed to be compatible with the neighborhood
it...it could be considered. Um, the applicant did submit some plans, uh, a
couple of years ago. Um, they weren't something that we would have
recommended, given their design. We did indicate that we felt that some
clustering would be appropriate here, uh, but that particular design wasn't
something we could have recommended. Um, the applicant chose not to
pursue clustering and...and submitted this as a...asfngle-family
subdivision.
Correia: I think it's a lost opportunity, I mean, given that the housing market
analysis that we have...calls out that we have limited multi-family zones,
and that our Comprehensive Plan has this as a goal and strategy to have,
um, more mixed neighborhoods, that it just seems...like a missed
opportunity.
Wright: Yeah, and the Comprehensive Plan also points out that a reasonable use
per acre, reasonable density per acre of housing is five to seven in most
situations and here we're talking about maybe two.
Bailey: Other questions?
Champion: I want to go back to the wetlands. In the normal course of time, if there
wasn't any development, wetlands I would assume would wax and wane
and deteriorate and all that stuff on their own, just because of rain and dirt
and grasses. So, what constitutes preserving a wetland? What kind of
burden is that?
Miklo: Well, in this particular case, much of the wetland has been farmed and
disturbed, uh, there's a lot of invasive species in, uh, in this area, uh, so our
view of it, and we did consult with a wetland expert and their indication
was...right now it's a poor quality wetland, uh, and that's some of the work
that will be done as, uh, part of the storm water facilities and also
mitigating the wetland that they're removing, which is required by the
Corps of Engineers will actually improve the quality of, uh, the wetland,
but it will need to be monitored over time. The Corps requires a
monitoring period of five years. Our...our subdivision regulations and our
zoning code would require, as we talked about the homeowners'
association to maintain it in perpetuity, um, so it would require
monitoring, removing invasive species, correcting drainage problems.
Bailey: Any other questions?
Hayek: We should hear from the folks here.
Bailey: Well, before we...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 13
Wright: I have one more question for Bob, or perhaps for the developer.
What...uh, is anticipated being the low-end home price out here?
Miklo: I don't know. We really don't...
Wright: Is the developer present?
Miklo: They are. You could ask them.
Bailey: Okay. Before we move into that portion, um, let's just disclose any ex
parte communications that we've had regarding this rezoning? Any.. .
Hayek: Uh, I, uh, had a conversation with Jamie Sandler, uh, who lives out there
and is not in favor of this, um, she expressed concerns about housing type,
location of open space and general concepts, planning of it. I also spoke
with Bob Miklo from City staff today, and I asked him some questions
about this, uh, concerning some of those same issues, as well as Rohret
Road transition, wetlands, traffic, that kind of thing.
Bailey: Okay.
Wilburn: I had a conversation with Mr. Larry Jewell, who, uh, submitted
correspondence in our packet. The content of the conversation was
similar, uh, to what is expressed in there, um, I also, um, he had asked a
question just about the process in terms of, um, at the second, third
readings would, um, would the Mayor still allow, uh, comment from the
public. I indicated that that's been a past practice. It's up to the Mayor,
but uh, typically what has been done is at those second and third readings
that if, um, if we're not getting new information presented, if it's, if the
similar opinions are being expressed then since the public hearing is ended
that, um, the Mayor may not allow those, uh, unless there's any new
information. So, um, that's what I tried to reflect. I didn't want to speak
for you (mumbled) or not.
Bailey: Thank you.
Wilburn: Okay.
Correia: Also had communication with Jamie Sandler. She called me, similar
topics as Matt (mumbled)
Bailey: Okay. Others? Okay, I spoke with Planning staff regarding infrastructure,
just the general, um, ability to support this and the School District
communication and if we had received any communication back, and um,
questions about the possibility of road realignment. So, and basically the
information that was conveyed to me, you've heard, except the School
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 14
District I understand has not comm....uh, responded to the letter that was
sent. Okay. Comments from the public. This is a public hearing, so um,
please approach the podium, state your name for the record, and please
limit your comments to five minutes or less. Anybody wishing to speak
on this issue? I'd be surprised if not.
Hegeman: My name is Robert Hegeman. Mayor Bailey, Members of the Council. I
live at 44 Tucson Place. That's roughly right in here. Um, I do not oppose
the rezoning proposal. I have questions about the platting. Since I moved
to this location out here in 1992, there has been a new road, Rohret Road,
constructed, and Weber School, for which I and the community are very
thankful. I'm not here to say not in my backyard. I'm not here to be
obstructive. I'm here simply to raise a question about developing the best
possible neighborhood, uh, in this location, that is possible since it's a
legacy that will last for 50 years. So it is vitally important. My single
concern has to do with the neighborhood parks concept. The standards of
the Parks and Recreation Division is their neighborhood park should be
reachable within about aten-minute walk. Okay? That's a third of a mile.
Okay? And so if you look at the proposed neighborhood park here, it is
adjacent to lot sizes that are twice the lot size here. Okay? It is also in an
area up here where there's a private club for some of these other houses.
The distance from this service entrance here down to this intersection here
is a third of a mile. The distance from where this parks widens down into
here is 1,600 feet, a third of a mile to here. Not a single of these higher
density homes are within the reach of the neighborhood park. Okay?
Some of the homes, basically from about right here, around to here, are
more than twice that walk distance. Okay? So that's a boundary, and it's
important, okay, if you're going to have high density here, half the lot
sizes of up here, who really needs the park? This area down here. Either
the distance needs to be shortened by a different road connecting here, or
the park should be relocated here. Thirty-one of the 96 homes down here
are more than twice the distance from the neighborhood park. It is simply
not usable. There is a second barrier that's hidden, when you look at a
map on here, okay, and that is, this is a hilly region. Okay? If, let me see,
get my pointer here -excuse me -this is one of the low points in the
communication between the area south to the area north. It is at about 742
feet, 744 feet elevation of the road. These people will climb here, go
across here, it's...excuse me. How do I go back? There we go. And will
descend here. They will then climb about 24 feet up to here, and the
shortest road is to follow this road around here to the park. Okay? But
this loses altitude quite a bit, and you'll descend quite a bit, and then you'll
rise, so that from this point here to this entrance here, you'll ascend a total
of 60 feet. From this point here going this direction, you'll go up 10 feet
higher, but you'll rise only 50 feet. If you live in this area, and you're
more than almost twice the distance from the thing, not only do you have
the distance to go, but you have to ascend 20 feet, excuse me, you have to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 15
ascend 20 feet to get up to this road, go down, so the net gain in altitude if
you go this direction is almost 90 feet, or 80 feet, excuse me. That's
a...not only walking two-thirds of a mile and pushing a stroller, but it's
also ascending an 8-story building. This neighborhood park up here, sold
to you as usable for the development to the west which will be a decade or
two off, is simply not serviceable to this area. Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you. Others wishing to comment?
Jewell: Hi, my name is Larry Jewell. Thank you for this opportunity to speak.
Uh, I live at 53 Tucson Place, which if I can operate the mouse here I'll
show you where that is. Um, okay, that's the diamond shape right there.
So as you can see, my property borders the, uh, proposed development,
uh, on two sides, um, just to give you a little background, my family and I
have lived in the southwest district since 2001. We moved here, um, from
Colorado after...we're both native Iowans. Went to University of Iowa,
um, we lived in Colorado for 16 years and the sole reason we moved back
to Iowa City is to take advantage of the, uh, life that smaller city living
has. We were tired of the overdevelopment, uh, that was taking place, um,
in Colorado. Basically we felt they're overdeveloping their property. Uh,
and we specifically selected this area in the southwest district because of
the rural atmosphere, the larger lots, um, yet it was also very close to
downtown, very close to Weber School, and close to the...the amenities
that the city has to offer. So we've really enjoyed the opportunity to live
in that area, um, again, we...we selected it specifically because of the
rural, uh, feel for that, um, we also have participated in the, uh, urban
planning effort that took place in 2001, I believe it was, for the Southwest
District as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Um, we participated in that
because we wanted to make sure we were involved in the process. Um,
we had, uh, a need to understand what was happening in Iowa City.
We've met with other citizens that participated. We heard about some of
the challenges they had with development, uh, along, uh, Benton Street,
and some of the lack of transitions in some of those areas which were very
well captured in the Comprehensive Plan. Um, we...we helped to craft
that Comprehensive Plan and... and felt that, uh, it was a pretty good
product. I...I was proud to participate and I thought the Planning
Commission had done a great job of pulling together the citizens to do
that, um, as Mr. Hegeman pointed out, uh, we're not opposed to the
development. We...we understand the developer has a right to develop
their property, and we...we support that. Um, where we do have concerns
is, um, we, it relates back specifically to the Southwest District Plan. We
feel that the density that's represented on this property here is too dense
for, uh, an acceptable neighborhood in that area, and part of the reason is
because when we talk about the number of houses per lot, uh, the figure
was thrown out of two houses per acre. But that includes all of the non-
usable land, all of the wetland, the park space, so that's a total. Really if
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6
Page 16
you look at this, and especially in the, uh, higher density area there,
overall based on my calculation, about a quarter of these are at the
minimum lot size. So you're looking at, if you remove that, uh, park space
and the wetlands, you're looking at some, you know, pretty high density.
Again, it's considered low density, but if you look at the surrounding
property, that's not necessarily the case. Um, the other concerns that we
have is the impact on the infrastructure, which is well documented in your
packet. Probably some reading that will put you to sleep, but these are all
neighborhood concerns. Also, the impact on the community services -the
fire response time out there is very, uh, on the edge. The police response,
um, the schools, we already know the situation with the schools. Weber is
overcrowded. If you attend high school, you can't attend West High
School, if you're new in that area. We have some neighbors currently that
are not able to attend the school which is closest to them. Um, two
specific points that I'd like to touch on is basically, um, within the
Comprehensive Plan, um, again, we're trying to follow that process, um,
and we believe the planning principles are pretty straightforward. Uh,
specifically it talks about an effective transition and integration from the
existing larger RR-1 lots in the adjacent neighborhoods. So, both on the
south side here where we're looking, we've got larger acre lots, and then as
they pointed out, we've got the acreage lots here. So, in the Southwest
District Plan, we talked about a...a...effective transition between these
lots. It specifically states that a transition between existing rural
residential zoned RR-1 portions of Southwest Estates and future low-
density single-family residential development to the west maybe
accomplished by platting larger RS-5 zoned lots, backing onto the existing
rural residential lots of Southwest Estates. So basically if you looked at
that, these are not the larger lots that are currently transitioned there.
Those larger lots are up here, closer to the park, closer to the private club
that, uh, this portion of the, uh, landowners will be able to attend, uh, this
portion it's been discussed probably would no't be included in the, uh,
particular homeowners' association, be able to attend that. Um, the other
concern, um, that I would like to talk about is the reduction that has been
proposed...along this wetland here as, uh, Mr. Miklo pointed out,
basically they've approved the reduction of the wetland that exists there
from 20, or from 100 foot buffer down to 25 feet. So you've got a natural
transition that's already in place there between the larger lots and what's
called out specifically within the, uh, planning principles. They've
allowed the reduction and there are existing problems, water issues, for
most of the properties in that area. Um, it is hilly. Down in this portion,
because of this wetland, whether it's a high quality or not, especially just
on Saturday, I believe it was, all of this was filled with water. Okay? The
water was running down here, and we know what it was like last year and
the year before. So, you're taking the situation where you've got water.
This is needed for the watershed, and you're reducing that. There's also a
sensitive area there -the hills that are there are considered sensitive areas,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 17
and they can't be developed, but yet they want to include that sensitive
area in...in the individual plat, uh, the lots...each lot there. So basically
you're further causing problems for the watershed. You're reducing the,
uh, the effective transition and essentially we feel that it doesn't meet the
Southwest District Plan. Um, let's see...
Bailey: Mr. Jewell, could you...conclude your remarks please?
Jewell: Sure. Absolutely (both talking)
Bailey: ...of the time.
Jewell: Okay, so basically in conclusion, uh, I believe that I mentioned the
majority of the neighbors are not opposed to the change. We actually are
trying to embrace the change process. We're participating from all the
planning meetings. Um, what we would like to request is, um, to ask the
City Council to deny this current request for rezoning and the, uh,
corresponding development proposal, um, based on the concerns raised in
the packet, the concerns expressed here tonight, um, we'd also ask that the
City Council refuse to consider any further development proposals until
the developer actually sits down and follows the good neighbor policy and
meets with the neighbors, takes into consideration the concerns, and uh,
works with us as we requested multiple times. Um, with that in mind, I
have a petition signed by the majority of the homeowners, uh, impacted by
this, that I would like to present tonight to the Council, um, with our
concerns summarized as part of this meeting.
Bailey: Thank you. And the City Attorney can take that petition. Thank you.
Jewell: Thank you.
Bailey: Others wishing to comment?
Tokuhisa: Good evening, uh, Mayor Bailey, Members of the City Council. I'm Dave
Tokuhisa. I live at 3305 Rohret Road SW. Uh, members of our family
have been living, uh, in Iowa City for almost 25 years now. Uh, it's a
community we really enjoy. Uh, we like the mixture of, uh, rural Iowa, a
little bit of urbaness, but not too much, and uh, all the amenities offered by
the, uh, Big Ten university. Uh, this is across-section. 1 ne iaterai
dimension is drawn to scale. It shows, uh, in the, uh, upper left hand side,
the lower drawing there is a 66-foot right-of--way. On either side of the
roadway are, uh, drainage ditches, and on the south side, uh, we have
existing trees. Uh, in that section of Rohret Road there are a lot of old
evergreens, oak trees, walnuts, apples, and uh, they serve a number of
purposes. They provide an excellent barrier to the winter winds that come
out of the north, uh, keep the area cool, uh, keep the bicyclists on Rohret
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 18
Road from being blown away, and provide shade. Uh, they add a lot to
the aesthetics of Rohret Road. Otherwise it'd look like another, uh,
country road, uh, going through cornfields. If we were to put in a 100-foot
right-of--way, maintaining the same centerline, uh, we would lose the trees.
Uh, the 100-foot right-of--way would extend over the trees and uh, actually
the sidewalk that would be put in would be to, uh, to the south of the trees.
The proposal was to move the centerline 17 feet to the north. Uh,
allowing a full 100-foot right-of--way, uh, and with its two sidewalks, and
maintaining the existing trees. And that is the lower right hand side. Uh,
looking from an aerial view, that section of Rohret Road does have a, uh,
two bends in the road. And if the existing road could be extended, to
move the center line north, uh, it would be a minimum disturbance to the
people to the south and would still allow, um, the buffer with its trees, uh,
protecting the subdivision from the road. This would reduce a lot of
residents' current issues about headlights, noise, uh, loss of trees and uh,
their, uh, the value of them. Some of those trees are 60, 70 years old and
no amount of money is going to replace them in our lifetime. Maybe for
our grandchildren, but not for us. And of course during the, uh,
development meetings, they said, oh yes, people do get reimbursed for
trees, but it's not the money. It's the fact that there are well-established
trees and part of our neighborhood. Any questions?
Champion: I enjoyed reading your letter. Are the trees...are there, uh, single rows,
are there multiple rows...rows?
Tokuhisa: Depends on the property. Uh, but there are a lot of evergreens that are
used as windbreaks, uh, there...and uh, it's a collection of trees, according
to the various landowners. But there are fruit trees, nut trees...any other
questions?
Bailey: Thank you.
Karr: If you would like that to be part of the record, we would need a copy of
that, Sir.
Tokuhisa: I do believe this was included in our letter.
Karr: Okay. So that's the same?
Tokuhisa: Yes, uh-huh.
Bailey: Any others wishing to comment?
Shields: Hi, my name is Kolleen Shields and I live at 3335 Rohret Road SW. I live
on the same side of the street as Jim, who just talked, and my main
concern also is widening Rohret Road when the time comes. Um, for us
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 19
to assume just because the Public Works office said that when they
developed to the east side of Rohret Road they didn't lose any trees,
doesn't mean that the configuration of our yards is at all identical to that,
and we have lots of trees. We have 10 trees, 30 foot, or 30-year-old pine
trees right at the front of our property as well. Those trees serve as a wind
block, a sound barrier, uh, they give us some privacy, and when we have
to look at a development, uh, that is going to be the density that, um, that
is proposed here, when we bought that property over 20 years ago, that
was zoned rural residential one-acre lots. So that's what we assumed was
going to be going in across from us. And things change and that's not a
problem, but the problem is if we lose those trees, we're going to lose all
of our privacy. And so I think it's imperative if we can save those in any
way, that that should be done. So they've not measured, nobody's come
out to see if those trees are going to be lost. They're just assuming
because they weren't in the past, and that was up the road inside City
limits, that they probably can fit it in and we won't lose any trees. And
those trees have a big extensive root system, and even if they don't have to
actually, uh, you know, cut that tree down, a lot of those trees will
probably be lost. So that's my main concern.
Bailey: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
Thrift: Hi. I'm Diana Thrift and I live at 3329 Rohret Road SW. Um, Dave is a
neighbor of mine and Kolleen is a neighbor on the other side. When we
bought the three acres that we own on the south side of Rohret Road, um,
as Kolleen mentioned, the, uh, field across the road from us, we knew that
one day it would develop and it was, uh, zoned as rural route, as uh, RR- l ,
and you know, so we knew that there would be houses and we figured that
they would be compatible with the rural and semi-rural character out there.
Um, I'm very concerned about the density that's going to be along Rohret
Road. I think a lot of people today have addressed many issues that are,
that should be considered, you know, the...the green space being further
away from the people in the most dense areas, um, I think Dave
Tokuhisa's letter proposed putting the less-dense houses closer to Rohret
Road, where we have the larger properties, to provide a good transition
into the other neighborhoods, and I wonder if the developer ever
considered that, or if Planning and Zoning considered it, or if the City
Council will consider that. Um, you know, the character of a
neighborhood, and Iowa City is a wonderful place. The character of the
downtown is unique, and you know, we love it. And the character of the
rural areas shouldn't be destroyed just so that developers can fill their
pockets. I mean, I think the developers of course have a right to develop
their land. I just think that they should really take the needs of the whole
area into consideration and as one of the other neighbors said, realize that
this is going to be in place for a long time, and it should be something that
everyone can be proud o£ And I also would be losing trees and some
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 20
privacy, and uh, anyway, I just wanted to say that I'm...I'm not in favor of
the plan as it stands now. I do understand there's going to be development
there, and I'm not opposed to that. I just think it should be considerate
development and thoughtful development, and I think that the...a lot of
the issues that the neighbors have raised really should be considered.
Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you. Anyone else?
Speer: Good evening. Uh, my name is Brian Speer and I'm with S&J
Development, the developer. Um, it's uh, been a pleasure actually
working with staff and so forth, and I can appreciate the comments of the
neighbors, um, we find that our clients and customers, and the folks that
have moved, uh, into Country Club Estates, they think it's a great place to
live, and it is a great area with the school and so forth and we certainly are
sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors. Um, just to kind of give them a
little, um, idea as it...for us to develop, what we try to do before we do
anything, is we come in and we meet with City staff and we ask them, hey,
what do you want to see? You know, and sometimes it's funny cause we
see, hey, we want to see multi-family. We want to see a lot of density
because that's what we're trying to promote here. And then we have other
concerns where they say, wait a second. We've got acre lots so we want to
try to have other acre lots and we just want to kind of move the transition
down the road and so forth. So, what we really do, and the same with the
park space and the green space, where you know I think even...even early
on when we came here, we had concerns about, well, you know, maybe
there would be a better location for park space and green space, but we do
rely on, um, Bob and his staff to kind of say, hey, here's where...here's
what we're thinking in the long run for development, and not just what's
happening you know in the next three or four years, but what we see
happening in the next 15 years. And, uh, you know, based on what we've
come up with with our plan, um, it's...it's really been through a lot of
guidance and expertise, and really listening to City staff s needs, and
where they see this...this wanting to go. Now, it may not be perfect cause
we all have opinions on what we think good development is, but one of
the things that's been important to us is to make sure that we do, um, we
do have a nice transition, um, Councilman Wright, you asked about, you
know, home prices and so forth, and what we see is currently out
there...we're probably, it probably starts in the low $300's and...and
maybe goes up to, you know, low $400's, somewhere in there, and what
we propose, uh, the builder we've worked with actually, he's...he's called
us and said, hey, we really need more lots. We've got about ten left.
We...we need to get going again and we'd like to have some lots, uh, for
the fall. So that's kind of where you saw Phase 3 coming in, where we're
continuing the...the main, um, gathering road down to Rohret Drive. As
far as, um, these smaller lots and they're not half as small. They're 80-foot
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6
Page 21
frontages, 70-80 foot frontages, to the north, and they're 60-foot frontages
to the south of the wetlands, so they're not that much smaller, and really
by city standards, they're...they're nice lots, and those lots will still, you're
talking probably homes that start in the low $200's and they may go up to,
you know, I would say the, you know, the upper-200's is kind of where
we're gearing, um, you know, we actually have a...a homebuilder that's
interested in working with us on those lots, as well, so um, so just to kind
of address, um, a couple of things. You know, whether it's the home
prices -we've talked about that. The density issue, um, it just kind of
depends who you talk to. We spent a lot of money on engineering and
coming up with a plan that had a bunch ofmulti-family and townhouses,
and so forth, and it just seems like it's very difficult to please everyone,
and this seems like it's a pretty good compromise where, um, you know,
the folks on the south side of...of, uh, of Rohret Road, and the folks with
the acreage lots, that they aren't necessarily seeing the multi-family and
that real, real high density right across the street. And as...as Iowa City
continues to expand, you know, maybe...we think it's a nice transition
that, you know, if there's that need for multi-family and that demand for
multi-family, that may just occur to the west. We'll just, you know, it just
kind of depends. Um, as far as, um, you know, the...they talked about the
acre lots and so forth, and what we are really...I'm not sure how I'm, how I
would get back here, but...but basically the main road coming down off of
Rohret Road, that road was, um, you know, we talked about this road, uh,
where's my...this road coming down. That was the location that the City
really wanted to see. They wanted to see the, um, the road come out right
here. You know, if we accommodate this, I think there's...Bob might be
able to allude to why he wanted the road here versus here, but the bottom
line is, we've really worked with the City closely on trying to design this,
and uh, and design it to where, um, we can meet their objectives, and uh,
we have...we trust that they, um, are...are certainly confident in their
planning abilities. Um, as far as meeting with the neighborhood, we did
have a neighborhood meeting, and uh, it's kind of one of those things
where we're just kind of in a pinch where, um, you know, we have to do
things that make business sense. We have to figure out, you know, when
we develop, it isn't that build it and they will come. You really gotta look
and see where...where's the demand and market. The problem with real
estate as we all know is that, you know, supply doesn't change very easy.
Demand...demand can change real quick. It can shut off, and if you've
got a bunch of supply out there of acre lots, you can really get jammed up
in a hurry, and uh, for us we...we simply have been listening to our
customers, and uh, we feel that, uh, that the lots we've designed are
somewhat appropriate. Um, really that's kind of what...unless you have
any questions. That's kind of where we're coming from, and hopefully
we've, um, maybe the public, the neighbors, could have a little bit more
understanding, uh, as a developer, you know, what we try to do
from...from day one to now.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6
Page 22
Champion: Well, I think that's great that you please City staff, but you had one
neighborhood meeting. Did you listen to any of their concerns? Did you
offer to meet with them again?
Speer: You know, we had one meeting with them and the concerns at the time
were, you know, would you...why don't you build acre lots, and the
problem with, um, for instance acre lots backing up to their lots
particularly would be, um, if you look here, if this is where the road
location's going to be, the road location would have to be here. In order to
get acre lots here, and these...these lots are wider, as you can tell. They're
probably some of the bigger lots in this entire phase. Um, and we
actually...we had nine lots in here. We lost a lot just to try to keep the
size up, um, so we went down to eight lots there, but um, with the, again,
with...if we had to increase the width. Let's say if we increase those to
acre lots, we're down to four lots. Those, you gotta remember with...with
development it's the road frontage that's very, very expensive, and so what
it comes down to is that...and I'm not sure what the values are of the
houses back in here, but the values of these houses will be nice valued
homes. They won't, I mean, they'll be, they'll probably be, you know,
easily mid-$300,000 homes, if not more, and um, but if the thing is if you
had to...if you had to let's say double the size of those lots, you would
have to double the price of those lots, and then you couldn't build. You'd
have to, you know, the thing is people aren't going to build $750,000
homes on those lots. It just...it just doesn't make, uh, business sense. I
apologize for flipping through here (laughter) um...so, you know, our
mission as developers is, you know, it isn't about lining our pockets with
money. It's really about developing responsibly. You know, that's what it
comes down to. If we can do responsible development, then....then we'll
get to continue in our business, but if we become irresponsible, and
again...um, we do listen to our neighbors at the neighborhood meetings
and most of the neighbors, in fact a majority of the neighbors even said
tonight -they're not against this development. Um, but they had a wish
list, but it's just something we're, like I said, um, you know, Alderman
Correia, she wants higher density, and you're just kind of stuck in the
middle. I think this is a pretty good compromise.
Bailey: Any other questions for the developer?
Wilburn: Can you speak to us a little bit more in terms of your thinking, uh, I
understand you're working with staff, but in terms of the, um, the open
space, the positioning with the greater density areas, the concerns
expressed tonight that in effect, um, in the short term that this could be
viewed as relatively inaccessible for some folks in the...in the, uh, the
greater portion of folks in the development. Talk to us...you were
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 23
thinking of the placement. Was it based purely on staff recommendation
or topography or, talk us through that.
Speer: You know, actually it's my understanding, um, that this was staff s
recommendation to have this...this outlot up here. Um, we, right now,
again, I'm uh, messing this up, but again, if you've been out there, we've
built a nice, a very nice swimming pool, some tennis courts, some
playground areas, some green space, and so forth, and our question was
the same, well, it's really the proximity of this, uh, and um, why is our
private area here so close to the other green space, and I think it had things
that were above our development that, uh, and Bob would probably be
better off addressing why he wanted that as the location. Um, it might
have something to do with the Poor Farm, it might have something to do
again with development to the west, but that's something I can't answer.
Wilburn: Okay, so you...you, essentially saying you put it there because that's
where staff said...that that was their recommendation.
Speer: That's exactly what I'm saying, yeah.
Wilburn: All right, okay.
Bailey: Any other questions?
Hayek: Following up on... (both talking)
O'Donnell: Go ahead.
Hayek: Following up on...on, uh, on the previous question, what is the potential
use of that wetland area in the middle, in terms of recreation? And how
will the homeowners' association maintain it for the use of area residents?
(both talking)
Speer: You know, it really...it wouldn't be user-friendly. It would be, uh, you
know, again, it's meant to hold water when it's raining, and then it's going
to have, it's uh, it will slowly drain out as, um, you know, as it dries out. It
will not be...there'll probably be some freestanding water most of the time
year-round, but if you're in a drought, it would be dry. Um, what I see in
plantings around there is there's a...there's a wetland mix that the Corps of
Engineers, the DNR, spec out and so that would be planted around. I'm
sure they'll be some saw grass and that sort of thing around, uh, the edges
and um, but that's kind of...we really try to work with the Corps of
Engineers and...and uh, come up with a plan.
Hayek: The more...more of a viewable space and not so much of a usable space.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 24
Speer: Correct.
Wilburn: Wetlands are functional space (both talking)
Hayek: Well, in terms of human use. (several talking) And I...it's my
understanding that the Parks Department looked at this and determined
that the grade was too steep to warrant brining it into the park system.
Speer: Well, and L ..and in the long run, you know, what they said about the Poor
Farm up there, that it's going to be a pretty amazing park up there, and
L ..I'm not sure...I would think that, um, anywhere in this community
would be aten-minute walk to that...ten minutes or less, to that park, um,
you know, and...and as far as the elevations, again, there are people that
like that, the elevations. There are people that don't. Um, so...
Hayek: Okay.
Bailey: Mike, you had a question?
O'Donnell: Well, that was my question. How far up from the front to the back will it
be to that park? I mean, people in the community ride bicycles (both
talking)
Speer: If I drive up on Rohret Road and I look at the development, I figured if I
were going to start walking, I think I could hit the, uh, I could probably be
at that park, you know, in five or six minutes. I don't think you're...it's not
a 20-minute walk or, um, I just...it's certainly if...if, uh, what is it,
maybe...14 minutes to walk a mile? You know, so...(several talking)
Bailey: Okay, any other questions? Thank you.
Speer: Thank you.
Bailey: Anyone else wishing to comment?
(male): My apologies, I failed to sign my name.
Bailey: Oh (laughter) Would anybody else like to comment during the public
hearing?
Schulte: My name is Chester Schulte and I've lived at 1812 Rohret Court for the
last 25 years, and I oppose this zoning code change of Country Club
Estates. The housing density is too high. People buy lots for building a
home based in large part on what's around them. It's like changing rules in
the middle of a game. The, uh, the new intersection will be placing
headlights on my house every time somebody comes out and turns left to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 25
go into town. Um, flashing on the living room and bedroom walls
perhaps, and some noise concerns are the squeals from breaking vehicles,
like garbage trucks, accidents from fender benders to life-ending
emergencies any time of day or night, engines racing in lower gears to
pick up speed, and it makes me wonder if I'll need a carbon monoxide
detector to know if it's safe to go out in my front yard. Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you. Others?
Amelon: Hi, I'm Ron Amelon with MMS Consultants, and I'm here to represent the
developer and I'd just like to add, uh, a couple of comments to what Brian
was saying. If I could (mumbled) when he was talking about the open
space on this outlot up here, um, I...City staff could clarify this, but I
believe one of the reasons this site was chosen was it is relatively flat up
there, where down in this area here it is pretty hilly and pretty steep, and
wouldn't be as nice of an area to have a park. So I think that is one of the
thought processes as to why it was located in that spot. And then, um, as
part of the location of this intersection, the reason for it to be located here,
I believe, is to line up with the street that's across the street, rather than
have a...two intersections staggered, it's preferred for a traffic pattern to
have 'em line up, since they're both in the same location.
Bailey: Thanks.
Miklo: I may just address the open space real quickly. Actually it's the Southwest
District Plan that identified this area as appropriate for neighborhood open
space. One reason is because, as noted, we already have a sizable open
space for the...the water facility, and that adding on to that would make a
more usable park. Um, we had looked at, in our review, the possibility of
a trail network, going through the wetland to get to that open space to
make it a shorter route for the, uh, homeowners in the southern area, but
the topography and the conditions of that land just do not lend themselves
to, um, a trail network or a path. It certainly wouldn't be an ADA trail.
We'd also at one time talked about whether Parks and Recreation
Commission would accept this, and they were not at all interested. In
addition to the wetness, it's fairly steep and would be very difficult and
expensive to, uh, maintain, so that was ruled out. In terms of the
clustering in this area, I want to make it clear that staff did not say no way
should there bemulti-family or townhouses or condominiums in this area.
We'd indicated that if they were appropriately designed, that that could be
away of actually obtaining more open space because uh, you would be
consolidating, um, units, and it was certainly the applicant's choice to not
do that, and there's nothing in the code that requires them to cluster, but I
just wanted to make it clear that we were open to negotiating with them.
The first design that they brought us we didn't really feel was suitable for
the neighborhood.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6
Page 26
Hayek: While you're up there can I ask you, and if we...I don't know if we need to
hear it from the Manager or the City Attorney on this. In terms of moving
the centerline of Rohret Road, what are the legal or...or public policy
implications of doing that in connection with a private development?
Miklo: I think there maybe some policy issues in terms of...this is a rezoning,
and if there's a valid public reason, then the City can put a condition on it.
I think the policy issue, and Ron Knoche the City Engineer is here. He
might be able to address that. If you moved a road every time there was a
property owner who didn't want the road, uh, in their area, you'd be
moving all over the place. So, in order to keep a fairly consistent, uh,
arterial street network, we try to use the existing centerline.
Bailey: And you indicated earlier, however, that we wouldn't need necessarily
the...the right-of--way that we typically require, and...and some of the
residents spoke to that, the 100-foot right-of--way or whatever it was,
would...would intrude, but you said that we wouldn't need that.
Miklo: From our past experience...
Bailey: Okay.
Miklo: ...with the eastern portion of Rohret Road, we do not, uh, require
additional right-of--way on portions of the south side.
Bailey: Okay. Thank you.
Wright: The 33-foot right-of--way would preserve the trees? (mumbled)
Miklo: We can't guarantee that, um, the City makes every effort not to take
down...down trees. Uh, but at this point the road isn't designed so we
don't know exactly what sort of grading would be required or if trees
would be lost.
Hayek: Are there any trees within the 33-foot easement, to the south? Or right-of-
way to the south?
Miklo: I don't believe so. There's...there shouldn't be. There should be a clear
zone.
Hayek: Okay.
Dilkes: So my understanding is what we're talking about is whether there would
be temporary construction easements necessary that would require
removal of trees.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6
Page 27
Jewell: Hi, my name is Sarah Jewell, and um, I live at 53 Tucson Place. It's the
property that has the, uh, wetlands on two sides of it, the diamond that jets
out on that side, and I just wanted to say, um, I...at the Planning and
Zoning Committee meeting, we had pictures...I don't know where they are
now, but we have had significant water, especially these rains, these recent
rains, streams from both sides coming down and so our concern about
them, um, saying that that finger that's on the west side then can just be
reduced, um, is very concerning because where does it go then? Um,
when we brought that up last time, they said that when it was developed
that there would actually be, um, less runoff than with the current
farmland, um, and this last week we had a conversation with someone
from the DNR and I guess we don't understand why there would be less
runoff when you're putting foundations in, um, and sod and compacting
the soil. Seems that there would be more runoff, which would add to the
stream that's there. So, um, the reduction of that buffer is very concerning
to me as a homeowner, and the others that are along that...that finger, that
is being proposed to be reduced there. So, that's all I wanted to say.
Thank you.
Bailey: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment?
Tokuhisa: Judy Tokuhisa, um, I live on south, the south side of Rohret Road, and I
know you all excited about the 88 foot that was proposed by the Planning
Committee, but I want you to know that my oak tree will be gone, not to
mention my apple orchard, many apple trees, and my big walnut tree at the
far end of my property. It's right, very close to where the ditch is that.
They would take the whole ditch and they would kill the tree, the root
system of those trees. So, please don't just assume that 88 feet's going to
solve this problem. Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you.
Thrift: Hi, I'm Diana Thrift, I spoke before. I just wanted to say that I just don't
want it to stand that, um, if you take, and I think it's 17 feet, is that right,
from the center line of the road, in order to get this smaller as you say
right-of--way? It's 33 feet to the south?
Bailey: Okay, could you address the Council as...
Thrift: Right, well, if it's 33 feet to the south, that's going to bring the roadway
into our front yards. It's going to take everybody's trees that are out there.
There are many of other properties along there have the pine trees, um,
and there's just no way, you know, our neighbors measured and even if
you took 17 feet from the center of the road, you'd be taking out many of
the pine trees along there. So I just, you know, we can't let that stand
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 28
uncorrected. It is true that, uh, that the trees will be taken. And, you
know.. .
Bailey: Bob, would you please clarify the distance.
Miklo: The existing, uh, right-of--way easement is 33 feet from the centerline of
Rohret Road to the south, and that's where, um, I guess the property, if it
was in the City it'd be a property line would be. If we wanted to get the
full 50 feet ofright-of--way on the south, we would take 17 more feet, but
that's not proposed.
Champion: So the City already has an easement on 33 feet from the centerline.
Miklo: Right. Right.
Champion: We're not really taking any more property.
Dilkes: It sounds like the question is we don't know if the trees that we're talking
about are within the existing right-of--way, or on the private property.
Bailey: Thank you.
Tokuhisa: ...address a couple of issues. Um, there are currently no trees on the
existing right-of--way. Uh, it's currently a fence line, and from the fence
line it becomes the drainage ditch. Uh, if the centerline were shifted north
by 17 feet, the drainage ditch would be filled in, and part of it would
become the sidewalk. I believe it's afive-foot sidewalk on that side.
Eight foot at the other. Uh, it would have minimal impact on the trees by
putting in a sidewalk, as opposed to bulldozing them to move the sidewalk
actually to the south of the trees. Uh, the centerline is, uh, in the State of
Iowa, since it is not a state road, it's a local government decision, uh, in
this case it's sort of a shared responsibility between Johnson County and
Iowa City. Uh, but that can be resolved, uh, locally. Historically, Rohret
Road has been realigned and it was realigned during its construction, it's
upgrade, to correspond to the intersection of Cae and Mormon Trek. The
old section of Rohret Road is now the, uh, little section of prairie grass,
uh, to the north side, northwest side of the intersection. Uh, any more
questions?
Bailey: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment?
Hegeman: (mumbled) um, final point on the recreation. Uh, the children under ten
deserve a small green space in this area. Without it they're going to be
attracted down to the wetlands, not a wise situation.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 29
Bailey: Thank you. Anyone else who hasn't spoken at the public hearing wishing
to speak? Okay.
Wilburn: Before you close the, uh, public hearing, um, my presumption, if the
public hearing is closed then the CZA is, uh, cannot be...am I correct, or
am I thinking.. .
Dilkes: No, if you want amendments to the CZA, then you need to keep the public
hearing open.
Wilburn: Yeah, okay, thanks. Yeah.
Bailey: Do you have any concerns about closing the public hearing?
Wilburn: Um...
Champion: I'd like to keep it open!
Wilburn: There's a couple...there's a couple points, uh, that I'm trying to think
through. I have supported, uh, and one of the speakers brought up that,
uh, acknowledging that...they were acknowledging that the developer has
development rights...and the property, um, and people expressed a
concern related to, um, what the plan has said, the rural nature of that, and
others (noise on mic, unable to hear) due change. One of the conditions
that Council, um, councils have looked at over the past few years, uh,
related to this, the issues of sprawl and some of the housing concerns that
were brought up, uh, in terms of affordability and things like that, uh,
I...I've certainly supported those, so the, um, for me the...the question of,
um, density, um, you know, that's a subjective thing. What one person
views as too dense, others don't feel is quite dense. Um, so concerns,
other concerns if I'm trying to support community wide, uh, those values
of trying to reduce some, uh, sprawl, um, by building in where we can,
some of the more condensed lots, um, I support those. You also try to
look at some of the things in terms of where you're putting some open
space and access to trails and that type of thing, so, um, the questions that
are running through my mind, uh, are the question about the road
alignment and what if any additional space would be needed to, uh, take
out some of the trees that would be on property...private property, efforts
the City's made in the past to try and minimize, reduce that, so one
question, I'm just trying to sort through is about the road and I've ridden
out, I've biked out on this area, but I just...that's one thing in terms of what
other information I'm just trying to...to think about how that might look
and what the net effect is going to be. Um, so I think that's...that's where I
would be looking. That, and just kind of rethinking. Bob had brought up
that staff did not say that, uh, had talked about some possible clustering on
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 30
the bottom, might present some more open space opportunities and so
that's kind of...I'd like to think through that a little bit more.
Bailey: Okay.
Champion: Yeah, I would too. I'd like to think through that a little bit more to get
some more open space down with all those congestion, with all those
houses, but I am also very concerned about those trees that are on private
property, that people planted 25 years ago for privacy and wind screen,
and I...I don't see why this developer should have the right to develop his
property at the expense of somebody else's property. I totally agree he
should have the right to develop it, but I think there must be some way to
save those trees that people planted for the very reasons that I like a big
tree, uh, for shade and privacy and wind. I'm...I'm disturbed that that
wasn't dealt with by the developer when he met with the neighborhoods.
Um, and whether you all were there or invited, but there must be some
way, in cooperation with the City and the developer, to preserve those
trees. I agree with you, Ross, about the density. I don't mind the density,
because I'm really against all this urban sprawl we have, uh, I like your
idea of some clustering to provide some green space down there. Um, but
I'm concerned about the neighborhood trees. I really am. I would be
furious if the City came in and killed my 300-year-old oak. I tell you, I'd
be furious!
Wilburn: Um, before I, uh, ask to continue, move to continue to public hearing, a
question...I don't know if Bob or Jeff, um, in terms of, uh...um...related
to this...this notion of clustering, possibly creating some smaller packets
of open space, can you...can you talk me through, again, I'm not asking
you to design it for the developer, but what...when you were thinking that
there might be some possibilities, can you kind of talk us through some,
uh, I don't know if dimension wise or...or um, is it open space, breathable
space. Is it open space, functional use...usable space? I know the Parks
and Rec Commission, at times they can tend to think more of open space
as...as a park, but I'm thinking in terms of lower use land.
Miklo: Given, um, Parks and Recreation's commission's desire to have at least
three acre parks, given the maintenance needs, uh, I wouldn't see a public
park in this area. If there was open space it would be incorporated into the
private development, so it would be available, for example, if there was a
cluster of townhouses, there would be some open space available to the
occupants of those townhouses. I think your next item on the agenda is a
good example of that, where they set aside a tract of the land and they're
going to put some amenities in it so that the, the people who live in the
townhouses who don't have individual, private yards will have this
common area or open space, um, so that's (both talking) so it wouldn't
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 31
necessarily be access to the larger public, but it could be accessed to
the...to the area of the neighborhood that it serves.
Wilburn: Yeah, and one final thing and then I'll go ahead and make a motion to
continue the public hearing. Um, I don't know which diagram you need to
go back to, but um, and I understand in the entire area there's not a deficit
of...of open space, but I...there was a, that...go back one, that blue area.
Where is this in...
Miklo: Yeah, this is the, on the County Poor Farm, so it's roughly this area here.
The new Emergency Communication Center is right in this area, just to
orient you. Um, and this is, uh, this would be a sizable open space, uh,
given there's some prairies and... and stream corridors (both talking)
Wilburn: So that's to the north...that's to the north of this area though. Okay, all
right. Thank you. Um, by motion then. All right, I move to continue the
public hearing. Uh, do I need to set a date to that?
Karr: Is it April 7th?
Bailey: Our next Council meeting is...March. March 24th.
Karr: March 24th.
Wilburn: Okay. (several talking)
Wright: Second.
Bailey: Okay, we have a motion to continue the public hearing, and a second.
Discussion? All those in favor of continuing the public hearing to March
24th say aye. Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. Do we...
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Wilburn: So moved.
Wright: Second.
Bailey: Discussion? Um, moved by Wilburn, seconded by Wright. All those in
favor say aye. Those opposed same sign. Can I have a motion to defer
first consideration?
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST
CONSIDERATION)
Champion: So moved.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 32
Bailey: Moved by Champion.
Wilburn: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Wilburn. Any discussion?
Wilburn: Jeff, did you have something...
Davidson: Yeah, just one thing. Madame Mayor, could...could Council clarify for
staff what information you would like for the 24th, just so we're clear that
we have everything ready when you take up the hearing again on the 24th.
Correia: I'd like more information about the, when you would be designing Rohret
Road. I mean, I think we need to have more information about what needs
to be considered, what are the possibilities for considering.
Davidson: Yeah, what we'll do, Amy, is have, uh, Rick and Ron, the Public Works'
Director and the City Engineer address that issue. I mean, they're the ones
who will ultimately approve those design plans, and so they're the ones
you need to hear from in terms of the notion of being able to...to adjust
the road alignment, and... and I think a more careful look needs to be taken
of exactly...we'll at least try and get a handle on that for you.
Bailey: Yeah, and...
Hayek: And in connection with that, if...if the ultimate staff message on that issue
is, um, we don't recommend shifting the center line, uh, if we can do
anything, and we may not be able to do anything better than a we didn't do
it in the past; we don't think we'll do it in the future. I think the people
who live to the south of that road deserve to know realistically
what...what the future portends, assuming no movement of the center line.
And that maybe, we can't give you a guarantee, which is what your
message is tonight, but maybe look into that a little further so that we can
have a clear message to them.
Davidson: We will look into it further, and I know...I know the Public Works'
Director is off for a week now, so we'll try and have that information for
you for the 24th, uh, as you say, Matt, one way or another, at least have an
answer for you. Otherwise, if we're going to need more time we'll let you
know on the 24th.
Hayek: Okay.
Wilburn: The other piece to that, um, Bob you had mentioned that you didn't
preclude to the developer, and I know he'll need time to consider this,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6 Page 33
think of it, but you were thinking there maybe the opportunity of this, uh,
this clustering, touch base with the developer to see if that....more
conversation about that, whether he was assuming, um, or not aware of
what you were thinking, and then would he be open to that possibility.
Correia: One of my concerns is the lack of the diversity of housing types, so
whether the density...I'm not saying that I think there should be more
homes built, but that there should be diversity of housing type, which
might require a higher zoning, but we have data that our housing market
needs a diversity of housing with a range of price points. I mean, we have,
you know, folks who are teachers and police officers who wouldn't be able
to afford a $300,000 to $400,000 home. We have a growing retired, you
know, aging population, retirees, empty nesters who are not going to be
purchasing 300,000, generally, $300,000 to $400,000 homes, and it'd be
nice to, you know, try and replicate some things like the Peninsula, you
know, out and populate that idea. I think that that's called out in our
Comprehensive Plan. I think that that's what is called out in the Housing
Market Analysis, um, and I'd be interested in trying to promote this...this
type of housing development because this is what the data is telling us our
housing market needs.
Davidson: As Bob indicated, Amy, we did have those discussions with the developer,
and what we'll have for you on the 24th, we'll get with the developer and
find out exactly what their feelings are about that. And... and you can do
that without increasing the overall density. That's what the OPDH
(several talking) is for. You just cluster the units, and we'll find out what
the developer's perspective is on that for the 24th.
Wilburn: I'm not implying staff did anything wrong. I just...I just didn't have an
opportunity to follow up with you, um, when the packet came out
(mumbled). Thank you.
Bailey: Anything else?
Davidson: Anything else?
Bailey: Does that cover it? (several commenting) Okay. Can I have a motion to
defer first consideration? (several talking)
Karr: We had a motion and a second. I don't know if (several talking)
Bailey: Sorry!
Karr: So, all those in favor.
Bailey: All those in favor say aye. Those opposed same sign. Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#6
Page 34
Dilkes: And just a reminder, if we're heading in a direction that's contrary to
Planning and Zoning, we need to think about getting that consult
scheduled.
Bailey: Okay. So we'll probably, we'll have a much better idea on the 24th, or
even probably before that, I think. All right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#9 Page 35
ITEM 9. AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK
TO ATTEST A GROUND LEASE WITH THE JOINT
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ASSOCIATION
OF JOHNSON COUNTY FOR PLACEMENT OF A MONOPOLE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT FIRE STATION 3.
a) PUBLIC HEARING
Bailey: This is a public hearing (bangs gavel). Public hearing is open. Public
hearing is closed (bangs gavel).
b) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
Hayek: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Hayek, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Correia: Do you think there'll be any more of these monopoles that will need to
be...is anybody here?
Bailey: Andy? Do we...
Lombardo: There were several towers. Whether or not they'll be monopoles (both
talking)
Bailey: ...sites right now, yeah.
Rocca: Is your question will there be more associated with the Joint
Communications system? (several responding) There'll be seven of'em
total.
Correia: But in Iowa City?
Rocca: I think there'll be three additional in Iowa City at various locations.
Correia: We'll just know more about (both talking)
Rocca: Certainly you will.
Correia: ...later.
Rocca: Yes.
Bailey: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#9
Page 36
Wright: I think at least one of'em's going to be on the roof of something at the
University but (mumbled)
Bailey: Right, uh, the Blank Honor Center. They have a provision there for that,
is that correct?
Rocca: That's correct.
Bailey: Okay.
Rocca: And we do have, uh, one of the contractors here if you wanted to talk
specifically about sites throughout the county, related to the system.
Bailey: Okay. Any other discussion? All right, roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#16 Page 37
ITEM 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL
BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2010.
Champion: Move the resolution.
Bailey: Moved by Champion.
Wright: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Wright. Discussion?
Correia: Well, as you all know, I'm wondering if there might be a second to an
amendment to reduce, additionally reduce the Airport General Fund
allocation. Um, what I'd like to do is apply that to pay down, um, in the
Housing Inspections and not have quite so severe of a increase in those
Housing Inspection fees. Additionally, I'm interested in taking out the
(mumbled) CIP the road use tax to do the Interstate 80 beautification,
rather use those road use tax funds for things that beautify the city itself.
For example, um, or for inside the city uses, brick streets, replacement of
brick streets, sidewalk infill, those types of things.
Bailey: And, the reduction of the Airport is from what to what?
Correia: (mumbled) $100,000...to $100,000.
Bailey: To $100,000. There's a motion on the floor to amend the budget to reduce
the General Fund support to the Airport to $100,000, from I believe what
it is currently $120,000, and then to remove the project from our CIP.
Champion: ...do them separately?
Correia: Sure.
Bailey: Okay. So we'll start with the Airport and then the...to $100,000. Is there
a second for this amendment? Okay, amendment dies for lack of a
second. Would you like to present your second amendment?
Correia: Sure. So I would amend to remove the item in the CIP related to that
Interstate 80 corridor beautification, that $20,000 a year for five...over
five years. Instead apply those road use tax dollars for projects inside the
city, whether that be our...replacement of brick on our streets, sidewalk
infill.
Karr: Is that the budget or the CIP?
Correia: CIP.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#16
Bailey: CIP, and ...
Karr: We're doing the budget.
Correia: Oh, is that next? Sorry!
Bailey Oh, yeah, thank you.
Page 38
Karr: Okay?
Bailey: Okay. So, keep that...all right. Any other discussion?
Hayek: Now's a time for this? Okay. Um, this is a difficult motion for me to
make, but I'm speaking for all of us here based on a meeting the other
night. Um, I move to exclude Fire Station #4 personnel and operating
expenses from the FY10 budget, and include that expanded service level
in the priority setting process that we will embark on in another few
weeks, later this spring.
O'Donnell: Second.
Bailey: Okay, there's a motion to amend the budget to exclude the dollar amount
for the personnel; however, I understand the bottom line of the budget
would stay the same. Is that your intent?
Hayek: Yeah, I believe so.
Champion: That's right.
Bailey: And um, and so we plan to include the fire station in the priority
(mumbled). Discussion?
Wright: This has to be one of the most painful things we've talked about in a long
time. Birthing this fire station has been such a process.
Champion: It's not born yet!
Wright: No, it's not yet, but it just...even the...the (mumbled) of taking it out of
the budget just...
O'Donnell: Hurts!
Wilburn: Well, at our...work session part of the conversation that some Members
had expressed, um, I had restated, uh, my position that, um, through
elections, through public input conversation over the past few years that,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#16 Page 39
uh, that has indicated to me that is, um, building and staffing a station is,
uh, amongst the highest priorities in the community, uh, there was concern
by some Council Members about the impact of, uh, since we're looking at
a bunch of reductions to potentially include staffing reductions to do it so
close to, um, the prioritization process that we're going to do, um, and that
impact, um, with the organization anxiety related to, um, potential, uh,
staff reduction, whether it by attrition or layoffs, that uh, well, just a
concern on the impact of the organization, and um, I was willing to go
along with that, with the understanding that we will carry through this
prioritization process. It's my intent, again based on my experiences, um,
that uh, I will be pushing for, uh, the firefighters as, uh, again, amongst the
highest of my priorities. So, um, and so I'm um, I believe the Council that
they're willing to, you know, we're...we're already scheduling meetings
to...to do this prioritization process so um, we're going to get it done. If it
were...if it were going to occur later in the year or if I saw that it was not
going to happen this year, then I would not be supportive of...of going
along with this, um, and to try and set a tone of let's try and work together
on this prioritization process, uh, since it's going to be difficult anyway,
um, and um, in the spirit of trying to set a... a positive let's work together,
um, tone to the negotiations that we do with each other.
Champion: Well put, Ross.
Hayek: I agree, Ross, wholeheartedly, and I think it makes for better, uh, better
planning and uh, more fairness to, um, talk about the jobs we may have to
cut to fund, uh, the fire station, uh, in connection with discussions of
expanding our personnel side, because you can't expand our personnel
given the current economic and budget reality without making cuts
elsewhere and I think the discussions we had the other night bear that out
and uh, so this is going to be a difficult process, but it doesn't change the,
uh, the need we have in that area. That's established from my perspective.
Wright: I think we're approaching this...I can support this, only because of the
spirit with which I believe this Council is approaching the issue, which is
one of open inquiry and one of...of listening to our community and the
priorities and certainly I've heard from people who do not support adding
the fire house, but I've also heard from many people who do, and I think
we have to take the input and basically weigh these issues very carefully
as we go ahead. My comments about it hurting -still hurts plenty, but I
think we have...I think we have a fair process in place.
Bailey: And I would like to underscore that, I mean, the fire station remains a top
priority forme, but I think I'm rolling this into the prioritization process I
think it creates the most fair, um, process for our organization and the
most clear process for our community, and that's...that's going to be
important as we all move forward together to address these challenges.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#16 Page 40
Wright: This is absolutely not a normal budget year.
Bailey: Unfortunately that's...
Wright: ...normal budget year I think we'd have a different conversation going
right now.
Bailey: Okay. So, um, let's have a roll call on the amendment.
Karr: It's a motion.
Bailey: Oh! It's a... all those in favor of the amendment say aye. Those opposed
same sign. Motion carries. Um, now we have a resolution to adopt the
amended annual budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010. Any further
discussion on the budget? All right, roll call. Okay, resolution passes 7-0.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Wilburn: So moved.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn.
Wright: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Wright. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed same
sign. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#17
Page 41
ITEM 17. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE THREE YEAR
FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND
THE FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
EXCLUDING HUMAN SERVICES AID TO AGENCIES AND
COMMUNITY EVENT AND PROGRAM FUNDING.
Champion: Move the resolution.
Bailey: Moved by Champion.
Wilburn: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Wilburn. Amy?
Correia: I move to amend the CIP to...take out the road use tax for over the next
five years for Interstate 80 aesthetic improvements, and move those
dollars into within the City, um, allowable uses for example brick streets,
sidewalk infill, things that, um, that our Iowa City residents can directly
benefit from.
O'Donnell: I second that.
Bailey: Okay. There's a, um, motion by Correia, seconded by O'Donnell to amend
the CIP to remove the, um, I-80 aesthetic improvements project.
Discussion?
Wilburn: Remind me, which segment of 80 is this again?
Bailey: Amy?
Correia: (laughter) I don't know!
Bailey: Ron?
Champion: And why did we leave that in there? I can't remember.
Knoche: This would be the area of I-80 from Highway 1 to the river, is the area that
the aesthetics plan is for. It's a joint plan that we developed with
Coralville and the DOT.
Bailey: Okay. Thank you, and what are the implications of removing this from
our CIP, besides it won't get done?
Knoche: We're...we're currently pursuing some living road use trust fund money to
pursue this also. So there is the possibility of some grant funding to do
portion of the aesthetics.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#17 Page 42
Bailey: So that would be matching...we would need to provide matching funds?
Knoche: I don't know if there's a matching requirement in that...in that funding
(several talking) at a smaller scale.
Bailey: And what are the implications of our partnership with Coralville and
IDOT, if we remove this from our CII'? We simply don't do our section
and they do theirs or.. .
Knoche: That would be the potential. Yes.
Bailey: Okay, thank you. Further discussion?
Hayek: It's tempting when I hear spend money on brick streets, uh, that means...it
hits close to home, um, but I'm not a big fan of 11th hour line item budget
amendments. I just don't think it makes good sense in terms of our
process. Don't look at me! (laughter)
Bailey: Almost had me at brick streets! Yeah. Um, you know, we talked about
this in capital...our CIP meeting, and I...I understand your concern, but I
also actually appreciate this process. It may seem frivolous, but I think...I
think it's really important from an economic development perspective to
provide a sense of place, even as you're whizzing down the highway, and
uh, whizzing - um - so I think that this, there's a benefit, and I also like the
partnership aspect of this with Coralville and DOT, so I won't be
supporting this amendment. Any further discussion?
Champion: Is the total $100,000 of our road use tax?
Correia: (several talking) yeah, as...those road use tax dollars (mumbled) I mean, I
think we have a very, I mean, I think our section of 80 is different from
Coralville's, I mean, we have a very wooded. We have Waterworks
Prairie. We have, I mean, I've never driven on that stretch and thought
this needs improvement, but (mumbled)
Bailey: Further discussion? All those in favor of the amendment say aye. Let's
try that again! (laughter) All those in favor of the amendment say aye.
Those opposed same sign. Okay. I think the amendment carries 4 to 3, so
all right. Now we would, um, vote on the resolution to...
Karr: I'm sorry. Carries or is defeated?
Bailey: I'm sorry, it carries.
Karr: I'm sorry. I had Wilburn, Champion, Correia... Wright.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#17 Page 43
Bailey: Wright, Champion, Wilburn, and Correia, I apologize for not naming
names.
Wright: No, I voted against it.
O'Donnell: I voted for it.
Bailey: Oh, (several talking) O'Donnell.
Karr: O'Donnell, Wilburn, Champion, Correia.
Bailey: I'm sorry! I heard this direction I heard you. I'm sorry. All right. I heard
four voices, okay! All right. (several talking)
Hayek: Somebody tell me what the outcome of this was?
Bailey: We have an amended CIP. It removes this project from the CIP. That
would be the I-80 aesthetic improvements project (several talking) Okay,
so, now we will, um, further discussion on the amended CIP? All right,
roll call on this resolution. Item passes 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#20 Page 44
ITEM 20. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE ARTIST FOR
THE IOWA CITY WATER WORKS PRAIRIE PARK SCULPTURE
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE
CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE SAME.
Champion: I'll move the resolution.
Bailey: Moved by Champion.
Wilburn: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Wilburn. Discussion?
Champion: This could be our I-80 beautification. (laughter)
Bailey: I think it is! Discussion?
Wright: This will be visible from the interstate, and it should be quite striking!
Bailey: And Marcia is here for any questions, as well.
Wright: Marcia, you don't by any chance have a...a good sketch or use of colors
was having a difficult time explaining this to somebody earlier today.
Bollinger: It's been very simply presented. What you have in your packet is pretty
much what we have, but it's going to be a polished aluminum, um, the
bulk of the surface with the leaves will be polished aluminum, and then he
wasn't quite sure - there's a couple more decisions that need to be made
about what the actual branches of the tree will entail, but.. .
Bailey: And then, you...and the Public Arts Committee is raising private funds for
illumination perhaps, or that's been discussed?
Bollinger: Originally that was the intention of the whole project.
Bailey: Okay.
Bollinger: You have to understand this started back probably a year ago, um, the
Committee got together. They had finished up with the (mumbled) project
and they wanted to then go back and decide what are our priorities, where
do we want to do our next project, and after having kind of a
brainstorming session, they decided they wanted to have trail...trail art,
and we looked at a number of different trail locations, and the Water
Works Prairie Park has been looked at a number of times for art
installations, but they decided they really wanted to focus on that location,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#20 Page 45
um, with the funds that they had available. And any art work in that
location does have to be fairly significant. That's a huge, um, open space
and so it has to be something that's obviously going to probably cost a
considerable amount of money, as well. Um, and at that point we started
talking about different types of art, as well as different artists, and they
decided they wanted to focus on Iowa artists, and even local artists, and
that's when the whole concept of Liberty Ironworks and (mumbled) came
into play, and so he came up with two or three different proposals and
(mumbled) that they selected, but originally, um, the intention was to use a
part of the Public Art funds for this project and then to go out and actually
do some fundraisings and they said it was going to be so highly visible
they felt they would have a fairly decent chance of soliciting some funds
from private donations or companies, but with the economy the way it's
been, they've decided at this point to at least get the project going, proceed
with it, and um, get some (mumbled) go in to some companies to show
them exactly what it looks like and hopefully subsidize the cost...witll
some private funds, and some grant funds, potentially, but there just hasn't
been that opportunity. Um, they've also been discussing installing passive
solar lighting. It's wide open and it only makes total sense to try to
incorporate that, um, Dale Merrill, the artist, also came up with some
proposals after talking to a number of different lighting companies, and
about $15,000 or so is about the going rate to adequately light all three of
the sculptures. So, that's going to be another total different fundraising
effort on their part.
Bailey: Okay, thank you.
Wright: ...certainly encourage the Public Art Commission to do all the fundraising
and grant writing they possibly can for this, and I also, uh, want to express
appreciation for selecting a local artist.
Bollinger: It was pretty much unanimous. (mumbled) different slides, and everybody
said you know, (mumbled) and it's been a real pleasure to work with him.
He's very, very creative and (mumbled)
Bailey: And it's nice a project of this scope. It's our own sort of regional
economic stimulus (mumbled)
Bollinger: Exactly!
Bailey: For artists that rarely get that sort of, yeah.
Bollinger: ...people ought to be able to identify where Iowa City is by saying
that...that art work there! (several talking and laughing)
Bailey: Okay, any questions for Marcia? Discussion?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#20
Page 46
Correia: It's a hard cost to swallow, in a budget year when we're, you know, setting
aside $3 million or so in maintenance projects or, um, you know, had to
trim in that way and...
Bollinger: The Committee fully realizes that!
Correia: I mean, that is bonded and so there's (mumbled) taxpayer and um, you
know, and many people, I mean, I very much appreciate public art and its
role in the community and its role in economic stimulus, but...but it does
feel like a luxury in a time when many people are scaling back on...on
luxuries, um, so it just feels like maybe not the right time, to me.
Hayek: I, uh, reluctantly agree, um, I...I know this artist's work. I've seen it
elsewhere. I hold him and his work in high regard, and I think it's a good
project and it's a very attractive design, but on the night when I sit 30 feet
from our Fire Chief and make the motion to push off yet again our fire
station for budget reasons, I can't support this expense at this time, um,
and...and I know it's something we can pick up in the future, but our
budget is so bad and uh, the decisions before us are so difficult, that I...I
can't do this on a night like tonight.
Bailey: Further discussion?
Champion: Well, I'm going to support it. It doesn't have anything to do with
firefighters. Uh, it's not the same pot of money, and I view during bad
economic times to keep the Library open, to provide beautiful things for
people to look at is a good thing to do. I'm not saying I'll support another
thing where the budget is this bad, but it enhances everybody's life and
maybe during this time of great economic strife, for a lot of people they
might see that and it'd just perk'em up a little bit!
Wilburn: I'm going to support it, but in acknowledgement of what you...you just
stated, a concern, um, the money that we're allocating towards, uh, public
art, um, is...is part of the puzzle when we're looking at the prioritization
process here, so looking forward, um, I would be possibly looking at
reducing that amount or there maybe some guidelines, uh, you've
indicated the Commission's expressed an interest, a willingness to try and
do some fundraising. We may have to set up some type of structure where
whatever we allocate for public art that, uh, that you know, some type of
matches so it'd be more of a matching as opposed to us (several talking)
Correia: How much, so this, the way this is...being funded it's using dollars
(mumbled) FY10, and that's...fiscal year 09 and fiscal year 10 dollars?
Bollinger: That's right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#20
Page 47
Correia: That's right. So in essence we are prioritizing public art, in advance of our
prioritization process because we're...allocating fiscal year 10 dollars
before.. .
Bailey: Well, we just approved fiscal year...yeah.
Correia: I mean, we approved the budget (several talking) with everything being on
the table and going through the prioritization process, I mean, we had
essentially (mumbled) at least some portion of dollars, I don't know how
much is in fiscal year 09 that will be going into this, and what the fiscal
year 10...
Bollinger: About $43,000.
Correia: And it's (mumbled) so I mean, we've essentially...
Hayek: Well, I...I do, and I checked on this and our Finance Director is out there
and he can correct me if I'm wrong. I...I understand that it'd be some
residual funds from the FY08 funding cycle for public art, 25 grand or
thereabouts, and that the 09, um, budgeted amount of $50,000 has yet to
come to us for an actual bond approval, and of course the 2010 is out in
the future, as well. Um, so that's...that's where things stand financially.
Correia: So when we approved that Rec Center project, where...what dollars paid
for that?
Bailey: Do you know what dollars paid for the...was it fiscal year 08?
Bollinger: Oh, I'm sorry, for the Rec Center artwork? I apologize. That was
probably a combination of 07 and 08 funding. (mumbled) a little bit, um,
but for the 09 that we've got currently available, we have about $43,000
that's completely uncommitted. Frankly there's, um, at least one project
that may or may not happen, a neighborhood art project that you have not
heard anything about because it hasn't gone that far, but we still have set
that money aside because interest has been expressed. So there's...there's
(mumbled)
Wilburn: Well, forme, you pointed out that some earlier, uh, pre-budgeted funds are
going towards this, and the distinction for me is, you know, um we're not
stopping operations. There's, for example, we just approved the Aid to
Agencies, so we said that's...I mean, looking at...maybe it's splitting hairs,
maybe it's not, so uh, the piece with the firefighters and my willingness
was because uh, the...part of the concern about the image, the impression,
in addition to the...it's the people, the personnel, if you're hiring on one
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#20 Page 48
hand and laying off, and that's um, that's why I'm willing to put that off,
but we're not stopping, uh, either prior budgeted or things (mumbled)
Wright: And I think one of the tipping points for me is the fact that this is
(mumbled) Public Arts Commission to do some private fundraising, and
that we're talking about (mumbled) hopefully they'll be able to fundraise
enough to significantly offset some of this cost for the (mumbled)
Bailey: Well, and for me, I mean, I think Connie said it. It's distinct from ongoing
operating costs. This is a capital expense, and perhaps for some it's
difficult to spend on art, um, in a tough budget year, but um, we have
examples of where this works in, you know, the WPA is a fine example, in
great depression of course there were art projects across the country, and
for me it's just a value, similar to what Connie says, these are the times we
keep the libraries open, these are the times we create beauty, these are the
most stressful times and um, a city is just more than its infrastructure. It's
more than just the bones and muscle. It's also the spirit and public art is
part of the spirit of this community, and this is an impressive, amazing
project. I mean, I really commend the Commission for bringing it
forward, because it's huge, it's visionary, it's distinctive, and it's just, in my
mind, the kind of public art, like the literary walk that we should be doing
in this community that communicates our values, our spirit, and our
unique qualities, and I...I know it's a struggle, and I respect your opinions,
but I mean, it's such a core value of mine that arts don't go away when
things are difficult. Arts are even more important when things are
difficult. Um, so, I'll be supporting this.
Hayek: You know, let me just say something though about distinguishing between
personnel and...and CIP costs. I mean, first of all, ultimately they do
marry up and are passed on to the taxpayers, and secondly, we've already
shaved our CIP budget, um, in particular to free up funds to build a fire
station, and we've cut some really good things like, uh, Sand Lake Park,
which already has a certain amount of private fundraising, uh, in place that
has resulted in funds that will probably sit there, or be in limbo for a
period of time, and so I...I share your interest in public art. I love what
we've got, but these are different times, and um, and it's not a knock
against the particular artist or...or the art work, or the sense of having an
identifiable icon in that section of...of our Water Works Park, um, these
are different times.
Bailey: And I think we'll see in the prioritization all of us will approach difficult
times in different ways, and I think that's what's going to make that
discussion very rich, and challenging. Any further discussion? Roll call.
Item carries 5-2, Correia and Hayek voting in the negative. Thank you,
Marcia.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.
#25 Page 49
ITEM 25. REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF.
Bailey: City Manager?
Lombardo: Uh, in your packets, in your Informational Packet, there's an "at a glance"
with a lot of, uh, different, uh, updated items in there. IJh, I'd be happy to
discuss any of those with you further, uh, the last one, certainly, is that I
will be gone next week for some much needed R&R with my family.
Dale will be captain in command for the week, uh, but if there's anything
you want to discuss prior, uh, to my departure, please let me know.
Bailey: And we had some good news about our big pile of money today?
Lombardo: Uh, yes, uh, almost forgot -thank you for the reminder - uh, Jeff Davidson
was at the meeting for the RISE grant application, uh, representing the
city, and we, uh, received $1.2 million and change for, uh, the
reconstruction of 420th Street in conjunction with our industrial park, so a
big lift there.
Bailey: Great! Okay, Dale?
Helling: Nothing.
Bailey: City Attorney? City Clerk? I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Hayek: Move to adjourn.
Bailey: Moved by Hayek, seconded by Correia, I believe. All those in favor say
aye. Okay, thank you very much.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa
City City Council meeting of March 10, 2009.