Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-24 Transcription#2 Page 1 ITEM 2. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. O'Donnell: Move adoption. Champion: Move adoption....second. Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Please note that the public hearings noted on the Consent Calendar as being set for April 7th will actually be on April 6th, um, we will have our work session as well as our formal on April 6th. Any further discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #3 Page 2 ITEM 3. COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). Bailey: This is a time for members of the community to comment on items that are not on tonight's agenda. If you wish to address the Council, please approach the podium, state your name for the record, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Sullivan: Good evening. Uh, Rod Sullivan, 2326 E. Court Street in Iowa City. Um, I am here tonight speaking as an individual. I'm a member of the Board of Supervisors, but I'm not authorized to speak on behalf of that body tonight. I did, however, want to, uh, bring something up to you folks that I think has been an issue of some great concern about my office, and I think some other offices in the County, and uh, that is, uh, the issue of inter- governmental cooperation. Um, I would imagine that every one of you ran on a platform that included it. I imagine that everybody I work with did, and everybody that's elected to anything in this county probably had that as a...a part of a platform. Um, at the heart of the problems that I think we've had recently, uh, much of it comes back to a resolution, I believe, that you folks did, prior to a JCCOG meeting a while back, that uh, from... from the perspective of me, and I think some of my co- workers, made the JCCOG process uh, basically unworkable. And uh, I would just really like to urge you folks to take a look at, uh, the results of that, uh, how the process has worked when that's been in place, and how it's worked when it hasn't, and uh, I would really urge you in the future to think about, uh, forgoing that type of resolution. Uh, I think you probably know plenty of background there and so I won't go into it. I just wanted to express my opinion. So, thank you all very much and uh, good luck with the rest of the meeting. Bailey: Thanks, Rod. Anybody else wishing to comment? On items that are not on tonight's agenda? Dieterle: I'm Caroline Dieterle, of 727 Walnut Street, and I apologize because part of what I'm having to say is based on...on hearsay. I don't have direct knowledge myself. But I've heard that Coralville is planning to put a flood wall, uh, along the area there where the Marriott is, you know, down there, and I know that you're talking about, um, raising, uh, Dubuque Street as part of what you would do if the sales tax money came in, and uh, if you've been a kid and played in the creek very much, you know that water is the non-compressible substance in that if you, um, fix it so that it can't run in one place it's going to run somewhere else, and so I'm hoping that you take the advice of a hydrologist before you proceed with this project, because it seems to me that if you what you're thinking, and Coralville does what I've heard they're thinking, you'll make a large bowl there that will mean that probably Normandy Drive and the Peninsula and the City Park will be liable to be even further inundated than it was last This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #3 Page 3 year. So, um, I am, uh, quite worried about that. I don't think that raising Dubuque Street is a priority considering everything else that we have, um, on our plates, um, if we're cut off and can't go out Dubuque Street for a few days, or even a couple of months, I don't think that's as serious as inundating that whole extra amount of land. Thanks. Bailey: Um, Caroline, we can talk further about this, but we're fortunate that we have aworld-class hydrology lab here and speaking to what Rod just said about inter-governmental cooperation, we, um, are working with Coralville, as well as the University of Iowa, to model whatever flood measures we take, and we can talk further about this. I don't...I just wanted to indicate to you that, um, we have taken those concerns seriously. We've heard from a number of people. Dieterle: Well, I just, I remember when they were starting to build Hancher, um, there were people in the University in the Geology department who thought that it would eventually be flooded, and nobody paid any attention, so I'm hoping you do, uh, consult the hydrologist. Bailey: Thank you. Others wishing to speak to the Council on items that aren't on tonight's agenda? Klein: Good evening. I'm Garry Klein from 628 Second Avenue, and I...I also want to semi-address what Caroline was just talking about, but in a different, with a little different spin. Um, it seems to me that this, the...the local option sales tax item, since you...it's been described what it's for and those kind of things. I think probably the thing that concerns me most is not that these are projects that people feel are worth doing, so much as there needs to be significant public input into that process before the vote, and after the vote. It seems to me that, uh, one of the concerns I think people will probably have is how are you going to do these things? You know, are you going to consult a hydrologist? Are you going to...are you gong to consider the environmental impact of what happens, uh, at the north, uh, water treatment plant and those types of things in deliberations, and shouldn't the public be involved in that process? It seems to me that, um, it's a reasonable thing for the public to be involved in, given that you're asking us for money to do it, and secondly, I think more people have been concerned that they're not being consulted enough about projects as they're going along. And this is an opportunity, and it's ahigh- dollar, high-risk opportunity, and it seems, uh, that it would just be a sensible sort of thing for the Council to take under advisement as you move forward. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #3 Page 4 Champion: Do we have any public meetings planned to explain what we're doing? (several talking) Bailey: Um, the League of Women Voters is doing a forum, and I know that various people are speaking in the community. So... Champion: I think we ought to consider doing a public meeting. Bailey: Others wishing to speak to Council? Okay, we'll move on to Item 4 - Planning and Zoning Matters. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 5 ITEM 4. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. b. 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 (CONTINUED FROM 3/10) Bailey: This is a public hearing (bangs gavel) continued from March 10th. Davidson: Good evening, Madame Mayor and Members of Council. At your last meeting, we discussed the proposed rezoning of Country Club Estates, and had, uh, a good discussion and a lot of uh, good public input. At the conclusion of that meeting, uh, you deferred action and asked us to address a couple of things specifically which we're...Bob Miklo and I, Senior Planner Bob Miklo and I are going to address with you this evening, and those items were specifically the location of Rohret Road, and the impact...and importantly the impacts on mature trees on the south side of the road, when that is reconstructed, and secondly then, the notion of clustering some density, having some multiple, uh, type dwelling units in the south portion of the subdivision, uh, which would then give the opportunity to create some open space. There was one, uh, person who, uh, provided comment indicating that the proposed outlot B. This is the plat you saw last week, and the proposed outlot B here, that it was too far removed from the south portion of the subdivision, and that there needed to be, uh, there needed to be...uh, some open space down in this area, uh, for the persons who live in this...in this area of the subdivision. Uh, we have addressed that with the subdivider. You will recall that outlot B, uh, recommendation from City staff, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission, was to accept that as the open space, required open space, dedication for the subdivision. So, uh, Bob will get into the details of...of that in just a moment. Uh, I did want to point out to you that you will recall that...that we had the issue of the double-fronting lots, here along Slothower Road, uh, maybe if I use the mouse that will quit doing that. (noise on mic) I guess not. In this area here, these lots as proposed were, uh, double-fronting with, uh, S1oth...Slothower Road, which is a, uh, official public right-of--way, although it is not currently passable, um, what we had indicated to the subdivider was...the developer, was that they needed to take action to get that vacated, uh, in order to not have those be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 6 double-fronting lots. That has not been able to occur...timely with your consideration of this, so there's been a revised plat, uh, filed, which you see here, uh, and obviously you can see that the last two additions have been taken out and created as outlot D, so there are now four outlots in addition to outlots A and C, uh, which were in environmentally sensitive areas and outlot B, which is the proposed open space dedication. We now have outlot D, which is the large area you see, and Bob will provide, uh, our recommendation on...on how outlot D should be handled, um, with your consideration of the subdivision. So, with that, I will let Bob go into the details of the information that you asked for at the last meeting. Miklo: Regarding, uh, clustering, uh, in the...in the subdivision. We did, uh, look at, uh, previous concept plans for the area and as I mentioned at the last meeting, the applicant at one time had submitted a concept plan showing clustered town houses along Rohret Road, uh, this street design is pretty much the same as the plat that's before you, but it included townhouses, um, some of the townhouses here would have frontage onto one of the new streets. The other townhouses would have courtyards to provide pedestrian access and then rear lanes or alleys in the back to provide vehicle access, but there would be no streets in front of the units. When we reviewed this plan, we told the applicant that we felt it really wasn't compatible with the neighborhood. That it was too dense and did not provide enough open space. Um, we did look at the, uh, the Southwest District Plan that...that does indicate that some clustering of townhouses or condominiums, uh, might be appropriate along Rohret Road, if it's done in a manner that was compatible with the neighborhood and as we indicated, we didn't feel that this was, but there might be a design that would be. Uh, further, the Comprehensive Plan would support some clustering in this area, um, it's, uh, supports diversity of housing, uh, throughout our neighborhoods. It...if you look at the area west of 218, there are approximately 475 single-family housing units in this area. There are only three attached houses, or housing, um, developments here. Twelve units in three buildings, uh, to 218 and Rohret Road, so, uh, obviously this area does not have a lot of diversity in housing. So the Comprehensive Plan would support some clustering. So with that in mind, we did take the, uh, applicant's previous plan and their...their current plan, which shows all single-family in the area. Um, and looked at how clustering might...might occur. Uh, the streets basically did not change in this plan, although what we did do is we took the 27 single- family housing units in this area and clustered them, and took 38 housing units, similar to the applicant's previous design over here. So there'd be a net gain often housing units, um, however, there would be three acres of open space, um, so if you compare that...we're looking at the previous subdivision design. We're looking at this area in here. So again, we're basically clustering these units over to this area, and creating an open space. Um, now this isn't the only way that clustering could be done, but This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 7 just for discussion purposes, we put this down and...and shared it with the applicant. Uh, one, uh, the benefits of this plan is, it does, uh, provide for room to shift Rohret Road if that's determined to be necessary. Um, and it also provides, um, some open space across, uh, several of the existing, uh, housing units that are currently in the County. Uh, so rather than a view of the subdivision, they would have some open space. Um, this type of design has been used very successfully in other subdivisions, such as Windsor Ridge. A similar plan is currently being built in the Cardinal Pointe subdivision, off of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Uh, there maybe other ways, uh, to do, uh, a clustering in this area, um, we did meet with Brian Spear, the applicant, uh, to discuss this, and he did indicate that he would consider, uh, putting some open space in this area. Um, if, uh, that would entail moving some of the required open space from the northern part of the subdivision down...down here. Uh, that would...that would make this public open space versus private open space, which is another possibility. Uh, that sort of change would need to go back to the Parks and Recreation, uh, Commission to accomplish that. Um, also as...as I noted, this concept plan or variation of this would allow Rohret Road to be shifted farther to the north, if that was determined necessary, and you do have a, uh, memo from the City Engineer, uh, regarding Rohret Road in relationship to the trees on the south side of the road. Ron Knoche is here to, if you have any questions regarding the specifics of that. Um, at this point, the applicant still is requesting rezoning, uh, the area with outlot D, uh, to RS-5, and then the OPDH, uh, 5 on the remainder of the subdivision, Parts 3 and 6. Uh, staff, we would recommend retaining the, uh, RR-1 and the IDRS zoning on...on outlot D, and this would preserve the City's ability to address Rohret Road situation, uh, to consider alternatives for open space, and possibly clustering, and... and also Slothower Road, um, the rezoning for the remainder of the subdivision, uh, Parts 3 through 6, um, could be approved, uh, but at this point, we believe this would need to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission because the, this is a fairly significant change from...from what they reviewed. Um, be happy to try to answer any questions. Hayek: With respect to, uh, Rohret Road and...and having the option in the event of green space and that one section of moving the road, it seems to me that's in the middle of a fairly straight stretch of road and...and what advantage is there to having only a portion of it available to move north? Miklo: That's a good question for...for Ron (laughter) Knoche: I don't think that we would shift the road just in that portion. We'd look at shifting it along the whole frontage. So, um, the idea with, uh, not rezoning the portion, we would be able to look at getting additional right- of-way at that time, when that rezoning would come before us. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 8 Hayek: Oh, I see, because you're talking about the entire southern boundary of outlot D, to take up all at once. All right. Would there be an impact to the single-family, uh, platted, uh, lot? They don't appear there, but they were in the original application. I assume those would have to be squeezed down. Knoche: There'd be the potential...if...ifthat original planner had come in, there would be the potential of having to squeeze those down, that's correct. Hayek: Okay. But the idea is that in the green space area, the impact is (both talking) Knoche: It would be minimal, that's correct. Champion: Ron, how wide is the road? Do roads have to be that wide? Knoche: The...the proposed road would match the existing width of Rohret Road to the east, which is 34-foot wide. But there would be the potential of...of, we'd have to look and see what our...what the growth potential is to the west of this, to see if we would, you know, need to maintain the 34- foot or...or the potential of narrowing down, um, but the issue of...of the trees along the south side still comes down to the fact that we would grade out the rural cross-section that's there, so the ditches that are there, up to the right of the line, would have to be filled in, so there would have to be some fill placed up along that, the right-of--way line anyways, um, you know, so the potential of impacting the trees would be there, regardless if the road is, you know, 31-feet wide or 28-feet wide, or 34-feet wide. Correia: Just so I'm clear, we're not considering this...tonight, this plan. We're considering the original, which is in our packet from two weeks ago, the original. Miklo: Well, the...the applicant has agreed to take outlot D out, so this, uh, um, as I said, you would...we would suggest that you not rezone this, but even if you did decide to rezone this to RS-5, this probably should go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for them to (both talking) Correia: The consideration for rezoning of the.. . Miklo: We're very comfortable recommending the rezoning to RS-5 in the planned development, for the remainder of the development. Correia: And that's based on Planning and Zoning Commission... Miklo: Right, and...and the fact that Slothower Road is not a factor in that. We've been discussing with the applicant for a number of years the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 9 vacation of Slothower Road and just has not been able to accomplish that, and uh, we thought...when we were reviewing this at the staff level and at Planning and Zoning that that was on...on track, and apparently it's not. Any other questions for me? Wright: Just a...one and...if we go ahead and take out, remove outlot D and at some point have some green space inserted there, perhaps the three acres as discussed here in some form, uh, outlot B would be reduced by about how much? Miklo: Well, the...the neighborhood open space ordinance requires for all of Country Club Estates, including Parts 1 and 2, I believe it's 2.5 acres approximately of...of open space. This is actually more than that, and it's because of just the way it's located. It wasn't possible just to create an isolated two acres. In order to give it some street access it came down, so I think this maybe over three acres. Wright: It looks like it's over four. I just can't...the print's too little. (laughter) So that...it might come down to the...somewhere around the standard minimum. Miklo: Yeah, we would have to review that with the Parks and Rec Commission. Hayek: As I understand it, the applicant is willing to shift green space to the south, but wants a reduction up north. Miklo: Right. Hayek: How do you approve the up north portion, which would include that outlot and green space, and then save for another day the southerly green space (mumbled) Miklo: That we probably should revisit with Parks and Rec Commission because this would be...then become subject to some sort of subdivision design, which would include housing units. Um, so that possibly could be approved as an outlot for open space, or future development, until we have that question answered. Dilkes: If you want to make the changes that Bob is...is discussing, you're going to have to continue the public hearing tonight, and defer the first consideration, to...to give, um, Planning and Zoning a chance to decide whether they want to have a consult with you. Um, so you're not going to act on it tonight, either way. Champion: Well, we could act on the original plotting, if we wanted to. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 10 Miklo: (mumbled) you couldn't because it shows...um, these lots over here and part...our recommendation and Planning and Zoning was not to approve subdivision in this area until Slothower Road was resolved. Because if you did approve this, we'd end up with double fronting lots, a fairly poor subdivision design, uh, that doesn't meet our subdivision codes. Uh, the reason we felt a fairly large area needs to be set aside is because if this is going to be redesigned, we need to know how that's going to be done, with Slothower Road being in place, because the applicant hasn't been able to come to terms with the County and the adjacent property owner on Slothower Road we really cannot resolve this until that. Dilkes: Well, I think...what, the question I was answering was that you could act on the original proposal with the original signed CZA. Miklo: Right. Dilkes: As I understand it. Miklo: Not the plat, but the zoning. Dilkes: Right. Staff is not recommending that, but that would be within your... (mumbled) Bailey: Others wishing to comment at the public hearing? Jewell: Hi, my name is Larry Jewell and I live at 53 Tucson Place, uh, I had an opportunity to speak, uh, at the last Council meeting. I appreciate the opportunity to speak again tonight. Um, I had requested a couple pictures (mumbled) and maybe Bob can help me pull those up, um, I wanted to expand on a couple of issues that I brought up, um, at the last meeting. With these pictures here, um, basically what I wanted to talk about is the area...right here, um, this is my property, which is bordered on both sides by this new planned development. Currently there's a 100-foot buffer, um, indicated as part of the, uh, wetland buffering area. However, with the current proposal, um, the proposal's to reduce that to 25-feet. Um, the concerns that I raised, uh, last...at the last meeting was that this buffer not be reduced and the reasons, um, are...are a couple here. First off, we have the zoning code that talks about extensive lands and features and within the zoning code it states specifically that, uh, these policies should be, um, included or implemented as part of the Comprehensive Plan. And specifically it states that, um, you know, we need to use reasonable, uh, um, issues or take reasonable precautions against environmentally sensitive features and natural sources...resources, while rezoning environmentally sensitive areas, protecting such resources from destruction. The concern that I raised is the issue of water. You can see with this aerial view that this is a natural stream corridor here. You've got This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 11 a pond here with a natural stream corridor down here, as well as here. So this is where the water's going to flow. We currently have water issues already on the property, and my concern is...see if I can get it here. Here's some examples of the water issues associated with that, and these were taken two years ago. Basically on the border of the property what you're seeing here is you're seeing a normal rain. This does not include the flooding from last year, and unfortunately two weeks ago when we had that heavy rain, I didn't get an opportunity to get additional pictures, but this is an indication of the type of water flow I currently have, reducing that buffer's going to make that situation worse, and again, the zoning code indicates that there should be an ecologically sound transition between protected sensitive areas and urban development, and I'm asking that consideration be given to not reduce that buffer. This is, uh, an additional picture here that shows the area that has, um, a critical slope. This is identified on your plat. This is part of that, this would be included in that 100-foot buffer. What is being proposed is that that be reduced to 25-feet. This is that natural corridor for the...for the water to come down. Two weeks ago the water was flowing quite heavily there. And basically it...it proceeds to be reduced, you're going to have lots that are plotted that will come right up...right down that hill there, and any development, further development, is going to cause additional water flow. When it rains, the sheet flow causes that water to build up and causes problems for the existing neighbors in the southwest district. So, again, I would request that, um, the buffer be retained at 100-foot. I thought we had addressed that two years ago when the issue was raised, but apparently this proposal asked to reduce that. Um, the other issue I'd like to raise is the, well, I'll just show one more picture here. Again, this is the sensitive area. You can see the slope of the hill. The water naturally comes down, and so by putting streets up there, putting additional, uh, foundations, having smaller lots is just going to increase that flow. Um, the other issue that I would like to address is part of the Comprehensive Plan. It specifically stated that the lots that transition between Southwest Estates and um, the new development should be the larger lots for the proposed development. Um, I believe the developer mentioned last meeting that we were requesting one-acre lots there. That's currently what's zoned, but that's not, as neighbors, that's not what we're requesting. I mean, we're comfortable with 3/4-acre or even currently 1/2-acre lots, which are the larger lots, on the current proposal, um, but again, as you can see by your plat, um, those are not 1/2-acre lots. The 1/2-acre lots are on the north side, close to the open space, close to the existing private, um, club area up there that includes the pool and the tennis courts. So, again, I...I guess what I would request is, it looks like this plat needs some more work, and I would request that the City Council direct the developer, the Planning Department, the Parks and Rec -all the stakeholders - to sit down, work through the plat, come up with a... a reasonable plan, include the features that are in the Comprehensive Plan, include input from the neighbors, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 12 which you received a lot of input from the neighbors, and ask that they try one more time and come back, so you have a better opportunity of helping to get this through. So, thank you for your time. Bailey: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak at the public hearing? Dilkes: You need to disclose your ex parte communications since the last time. Bailey: Anybody have ex parte communications since our last meeting? Hayek: Um, Tom Lepic attempted to call me. We exchanged a couple of voicemails and never linked up and never spoke about (mumbled) at all. Champion: I did talk to Tom Lepic, just about clustering houses. He wasn't in favor of it. Bailey: Okay. Wright: I had a conversation. I called Bob Miklo about the clustering, as well. Wilburn: I met with, um, a list of the neighbors here. I'll go ahead and read it off. I apologize up front for ruining the people's names (mumbled) uh, but we...we all met together, um, out on the west side. Larry Jewell, Mark Sandler, Jayne Sandler, uh, Chester Schulte, Dave and J.D. Tokuhisa, Dana Gholson, Mary Ebert, Karl Ebert, Robert J....I can't read your last name, Robert, I'm sorry, and Tim Thompson. Um, we essentially discussed... were some of the similar issues that were brought up last week, just in more detail, um, the...couple other ideas were thrown out as potential for example with, uh, Slothower Road, potentially that being a, um, walking, bike, multi-purpose, just natural pathway, um, someone talked about the possibility of a footbridge over the wetlands to connect the neighborhood, um, we had further discussion about the green space, how it was laid out, um, concern, um, about that elevation from the lower portion of the development to the upper portion of the development, for people who maybe of, um, more limited physical ability and/or possibility with children. We talked about, um, concern with the buffer and the slope in more detail, um, we talked about uh, several people that were in support of the increased diversity of housing in the area, um, and again, more concern about the location of the road and trees. Bailey: Okay. All right, anybody else? All right. Hi. Sandler: Hi, I'm Jayne Sandler. Um, I live at 41 Tucson Place, actually next door to the Jewells, and I wanted to start off first by mentioning, um, I reiterate the same comments with regards to the slope, because that does affect our backyard as well, and our back area. Um, we do get quite a river back This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 13 there, and um, as Larry had said a couple weeks ago, we had quite a bit of water running through. Um, as those lots are, um, platted, at this time, um, there are areas that will be within that buffer that they...within that footage, square footage, that the, um, that the homeowner that is in those homes will be able to alter, and that will create a real problem for us, as water will come down there, and that's for the sewer line is also sewer running, and presently runs, up there. I don't (mumbled) um, there are a few of us that are on septic. But...but that will be where we would hook in and we don't want any difficulty there either with the moisture and the, um, the grounds. LJh, the other thing that I wanted to bring up is the diversity in housing and I would, um, I like to see the fact that the builder has looked and the Planning and Zoning have looked at possibly reiterating some diverse housing. I think that from the comments, and I know when Ross was at our, uh, at our get-together that we really are interested in having some transitions to that...to a diverse type of housing within that development. I mean, placing it all on one area, and putting a little bigger green space about it, really is not necessarily integrating it into the whole plat. So, although we would like to see it transition off the one- acre to smaller lots, but not...they don't have to be one-acre lots, but not to, um, necessarily RS-5 initially, working that in so that it is, that it has continuity within that platted area, and that there is...RS-8 for, um, some other multi-family that is available, with more green space around those, um, and additionally being able to have more of a buffer for Rohret Road, because those people that are in those homes don't necessarily need to be right on the street either (mumbled) access to that. So, from those comments that would be what I would like to see a little bit more, um, envisioning with the builder on that plat of land. Bailey: Thank you. Hegeman: My name is Robert Hegeman. I live at 44 Tucson Place. I spoke last time. I am encouraged about the, uh, consideration for moving green space from the north side to the south side. I'm also concerned about the...the wetlands here. Um, the location of Lakeshore Drive is currently come down the slope, um, let's see if (mumbled) starts up here, curves down here, and comes right up the wetland area here, completely impacting on that wetland. Excuse me...um, let's see, backwards...so the location of Lakeshore Drive impacts the wetlands here, maximally, and is designed, as the City says, is to line up with this road here, that I believe, is that Kessler Drive? A county road, now I don't know, is that a private road or is that (several talking away from mic) maintained by the County? Bailey: You need to address...we can't hear you. Hegeman: I don't know whether that's a private road or not, but the whole purpose of aligning this road up here is to align with this, that is to come up the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 14 wetland which destroys the wetland. Now, it makes sense to align roads when there's going to be cross traffic. I would submit to you that the vast majority of traffic coming down Lakeshore Drive to hook up on Rohret Road, 99.9% of it is going to turn left down Rohret. It is not designed to align up with this road. There will be very few traffic here. So the purpose of aligning these two roads, um, doesn't seem to exist, and the impact on the wetland here is maximal. Furthermore, Lakeshore Drive coming through the middle of the subdivision best serves this whole southern portion. Everybody will still turn left, and so I think this location is harmful to the wetland area here. And it should be considered. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Anyone else? Ebert: Um, hi, I'm Karl Ebert and I own property at 3357 Rohret Road, along with my wife and my sister. We have two, uh, two lots there, totaling about ten acres, and currently my sister lives in the east, uh, parcel and we're going to build on the west parcel in about a year. Um, you know, this whole thing about the good neighbor approach is a joke because this contractor has never made any effort, made any contact with any of us in any constructive way, and all they want to do is come in and destroy about, on our property alone, about 18 evergreens that are fully mature and serve as a windbreak out there. Now this is...you know, that's just our property. There's about five or six other, um, five or six other acres just to the west of us that will be affected, as well, some more adversely than us, uh, because of their position of their house in relation to the road. So, um, not moving Rohret Road 17 feet to the north, or whatever the number was, will cause a lot of destruction and cause a much greater impact on the south side of Rohret Road than...than if we do go ahead and have, um, the County and City move it further north. I think the...the amount of impact that way is going to be virtually nothing, uh, other than cutting into a little bit of green space up there. Uh, they mentioned earlier about, uh, that it would...it might affect our trees, even if they do move it to the north by filling the ditch, I don't see how filling a ditch is going to hurt those trees. It's going to make a huge difference if they alter the course of Rohret Road, uh, versus not doing it. Um, and I think this is something we really gotta seriously take a good look at. I don't know how many of you folks have been out there and have actually surveyed these acreages, this property and... and this landscaping that's in, um, you know, that's in jeopardy here. Um, I think before you make any...any decision on this, or any, you know, before you decide to do something like this, you really need to see what kind of an impact it will have out there on the folks on Rohret Road. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 15 Musser: Good evening, my name is Duane Musser with MMS Consultants. Um, we're the consulting engineering firm for the applicant. Um, I do have a full-size copy if anybody would like to read the numbers. Um, the...the open space that...that Parks and Rec wanted is...the dedication is 4.69 acres, 2.6 is required. We had originally, um, the applicant had originally offered the wetland area as the public open space dedication. Parks and Rec did not want that, um, seeing that it wasn't flat and usable and that's when Park and Rec requested an area adjacent to the City-owned water, um, future water storage area that the City owns in the northwest corner. Just for clarification, lots 1 through 8, um, along Lakeshore Drive that do back up to the Jewell and the other residence, those range anywhere...the smallest one, the northern one, uh, lot 8 is 11,375 square feet and the larger one, uh, lot 1 right down on Rohret is 20,635 square feet. Your minimum RS-5 lot size is 8,000 square feet. Just a couple things I wanted to touch on, um, it's...it's our understanding from the original, um, CZA agreement that the applicant did sign, that was recommended by P&Z, that if we could not get Slothower vacated, by Council time, worked out with the neighbors...that that area, Parts 7 and 8, would be an outlot D, um, that's our understanding from the CZA. I believe that's how it reads, so we are here tonight with an outlot D, um, as part of that original CZA. We don't...we don't see the need to go back to P&Z, so I kind of question that, um, and we do understand, um, Rohret Road the alignment issues and...and we do have the memo from the...from Ron the City Engineer, and...and agree with everything he says, as far as doesn't look like it'll need...need to be, uh, moved. I had an engineer out there taking a look at it. Obviously, we need to fill the ditches, um, and...and we agree that when the City gets ready to design that, um, then we can take a look at additional right-of--way at that time. So...if anybody has any questions, um, we would like to proceed with the...with the amended plat, um, per the CZA, with the outlot D on it. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Thrift: Hi, I'm Diana Thrift. I live at 3329 Rohret Road S.W. I'm one of the neighbors on the south side of Rohret Road. Um, I found some inconsistencies in the report, um, by the City Engineer, um, in some of the statements. Temporary construction easements would be required on the south side of the road, if they don't move the centerline north. Uh, it says that some of the trees will be, or they think that some of the trees will be saved, but then it says lower that, um, some of the bushes and trees within the fence line, within our fence line, and that some driveways must be removed to complete the project. Now, sounds to me like we're going to lose trees so that someone can make a profit. You know, because putting in this whole development is obviously not being done, uh, in an altruistic way. So, you know, I don't understand why homeowners are going to be losing trees. I understand that if someone owns property that they should This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 16 be allowed to develop it. Um, I do think that the whole process hasn't been handled very well. I think as Carl Ebert said, we should have some real, uh, good neighbor meetings. I think it's terrific how the staff went back and got creative in, uh, you know, trying to redesign a little bit, to have some, um, clustered homes. I think a lot more creativity could go into this whole development. Um, some of the clustered homes could be put in the northern section. I don't have a plat here, but where the five acres of open space is to be, you know, possibly put to be connected with this other open space. I mean, if you have, um, thank you...if, I'm talking about this area right up here. If you had clustered homes along here, these people would be the ones who would probably benefit the most from the access to the open space. So I'm just saying, I think it should be considered. I think that a footbridge across the wetland is a great idea. I think some more trails, whether at Slothower Road or something else is a good idea. Um, let's see...I noticed that the developer didn't like the idea when, um, staff proposed the multi-family homes in this lower section, uh, with their new design. The developer stated that he didn't really like it because the presence of attached housing may hinder the marketing of the single-family lots. How's it going to hinder it? Oh, maybe by reducing the prices? That's what some of the neighbors to the south are a little concerned about too. Um, we don't want to see our property values go down, just like nobody does. Um, one other thing that I've noticed is that the lot sizes in the northern area are larger, and no, um, well, they're larger, and that happens to be where the developer lives, and again, it's like, you can ask somebody...you think we're saying not in our front yard, so is somebody else saying that. We also have the dump, the Landfill, is in our front yard basically. I can see it from my house. I can see how the landscape has been shifted by the, you know, by the sort of trash hill now (laughter) and um, you know, a lot of the people in this development are going to be so much closer to the Landfill. Anyway, I really think it would be a good idea to go back to the drawing board and take in ideas. I think there could be a very nice development there. One other thing I want to say, my husband is a hydrologist. He's been working with the City on, uh, some of the flood, uh, plans, mitigation plans, and when we keep building in areas that are either wetlands or flood plains, the, you know, continue to have these kinds of problems, I mean, we have an opportunity to think ahead and not, you know, harm the natural environment. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Speer: Good evening. Uh, my name is Brian Speer and, uh, I represent, um, S&J Development. Just to kind of give you an idea on...on, uh, kind of what our envision, what we envisioned from day one on...on, when we bought this property, is uh, we grew up in a neighborhood very much like this. We had...it was in the Quad Cities. We had a pool, tennis, actually a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 17 couple pools, tennis courts, green space, playgrounds, and so forth. It's amazing even today when we look back and you talk about a sense of community on what, um, just that neighborhood meant to a lot of people. Everyone's still really tight. There's people that, you know, they've lived there forty-some years...original...theyfust haven't moved, even though these doctors have grown up and so forth. It may...it was just a great community. It's called Windsor Crest. In fact, um, one of our owners in Country Club grew up in Windsor Crest, and that was one of the reasons why she, uh, I think was attracted to the area. It's amazing how, you know, we can chase this opinion on what development should be, and we can chase this opinion on what development should be. The fact is that, you know, we have had a good neighbor meeting, um, about the development. We understand the situation with...with Rohret Road. We understand the trees, and we don't want to chop down trees. I went out there -those trees are beautiful, and I wrote a letter, hopefully it got passed on to you guys, um, to, uh, Mr. Miklo, but I just think that what the neighbors really want is they want some assurance that proper care is given to the design of Rohret Road. We don't want to see the trees dead. We're not, you know, they're very healthy, you know, t hey look to be very healthy trees, but I look and say for the most part, if you look out on the road and you see the power lines, most those trees are outside those power lines. If you look at the report, the report says, well, the power lines really don't look like they're going to have to be affected. So it really comes down to filling that area. It's my understanding, and I'm not the, I'm not the engineer who will design this road, but I would think that if they fill the area and use that area as the construction easement, I think the design of Rohret Road could be accomplished. As far as, um, the conditional zoning agreement we did have, yeah, we have approached the, uh, the farmer to the west about vacating Slothower Road. The problem is that the owners are somewhat elderly, and out of due respect, we just said we would hold off on that. Um, one of the things in our conditional zoning agreement which I think will allow us to move forward tonight is that it calls, especially calls out for that, that if...if we don't have that vacated basically we will not...we will have to create this outlot D. One thing you will notice about, and again, we're listening. There was basically three concerns at the last meeting. One was, uh, when Mr. Miklo and I met, the first concern was the trees along Rohret Road. And again, I just think that, you know, if we give care to the design, you know, it...it, my thought is saying hey, we'll work with you, but we don't just want to see it happen and...and without really anyone doing a study. Because it's...it's a long stretch of 17 feet, um, second concern was the green space. And to be honest with you, it's kind of one of those things with the green space, um, we just don't...what was approached to us by staff, uh, the approach was that we would still give the green space on outlot B, but then we'd create another green space down in this Rohret Road area, and we would privately build it. We'd privately maintain it. We would have to insure it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 18 And, um, which you know in today's world of litigation, you know, a privately...and we're taxed on it. L ..I just don't think it's reasonable to have, um, to put that on a....put a public space onto a private ownership. I think if...if uh, and if you noticed the lots to the south of, um, oh...I can't read....what's the road coming in that's uh, Tumbleweed. If you notice the lots to the south, we took those lots out, you know, even though we aren't going to double...we would, normally we would double-front those, uh, that road there. We took those out, basically to act in good faith and say, listen, if the city does want to, um, reconsider the location of the green space, you know, we've done that. We've...we, uh, put a step forward in possibly negotiating that down the road. The importance for us is what really comes down to is that, you know, we have a plan that we've shown our neighbors, which we understand, you know, um, we have this good neighbor meeting. We can't always do exactly what the neighbors want, but we try to work out a compromise, and we also try to work out, you know, what is it that, you know, what neighbor do we want to develop here, and we do want to develop something with some, uh...uh, different offerings of lot sizes, different offerings of lot prices, and as...and as you can see, you know, really it's kind of where do you start? Where do you stop? If you want to go down to the extreme, we can do modular housing or something like that where we can get the price range down to $80,000, but for us, we think that the...we're in a very comfort zone for the development where we have balance, and um, so again, our zoning, what we're asking for rezoning, it will allow clustering still, if that's what we deem is appropriate. The other thing that we have a concern about is...is that, you know, we're talking about developing this space five years from now, at least, in the conditional zoning agreement. This is the last piece that gets developed. So, unless we improve Rohret Road. So...in all likelihood, um, it's going to be five or six years. What we don't want is we don't want to be bound to clustering, cause we don't know what the market's going to be in five years. But what we do feel is important is that we're working with two buyer groups. We feel it's important to show them, here's what our plans are. Here's what we want to do. I mean, we can still give the green space and still do the lots like we're proposing, and incorporate that, you know, uh, I mean, that's sti11...I guess that's...would be our hope at this point in time, but we don't want to be handcuffed into saying, hey, you gotta do the clustering, because it works over here. So, we're asking to move forward as is. Um, we feel the...the agreement we've signed allows for us to...to move forward. Um, time is of the essence for us. I mean, we are already into almost April. Time is of the essence for us because the fact is that we've gotta get working drawings in place. We've gotta get bidding in place. We've gotta build this, you know, and that's the other thing about building it, you know, this is huge economic development. This has a, when everything's said and done, I...I know it really, the amount of...numbers don't matter, but you're talking about a $51 million tax base, you know, on average probably, but you're This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 19 also talking about jobs. Right now. You know, and in the construction business, and believe me, I'm in the construction business. I got people calling me left and right for work. Um, that's not an excuse to pass it or anything like that, but the fact is is that, you know, I think we've done everything staff has asked us. We had staff support three weeks ago. Um, we've done everything right. We had our neighbor meeting. We couldn't do everything the neighbors wanted, but we feel like we've reached a good compromise, and we're comfortable with the kind of development we're doing, and it's exactly on track with how we envisioned it. Bailey: Any questions... Speer: Any questions? Bailey: ...for the developer? Champion: Um, well you are going to have...this, you are going to have different price ranges of these houses. Speer: Oh, most definitely! That was one of our goals. Champion: And, um... Correia: What's the range? I'm sorry, just to... Speer: Yeah, well, we see the range being in the low to mid-twos on the starting end, and really, if you look at the area there, it goes up to probably over $600-$700,000 and everything in between. You've got your...you're got your 200s. You've got your 300s. You've got your 400s. SOOs. And...and even above. I think that in itself is, that's a diverse range! That's a big range. Champion: It is. I'm happy with that. I mean, I'm not...I'm not convinced the clustering has to be done, and I'm not so sure that we as a Council directed them to do that. Um, my only concern was the trees and Rohret Road, and if that can be resolved, I can support the project as it was originally submitted. Speer: Yeah, and...and keep in mind, the Rohret Road is not our project. That's a City project. That's with your (both talking) Champion: ...development is, affects it it can be done. Speer: Right. And...and I'm sure if you've driven out there and...and if you read his report, it...I guess everyone just wants to be comfortable, and we understand that. You know? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Bailey: Any other questions? Page 20 Wilburn: I walked down the utility easement to...on the far east, that links up with the, uh, the wetland where the critical slopes are, um, by the Jewell and Sandler residents, um, talk me through...um...and when I walked through it it was after, I mean, the rains were long gone, but I mean, L ..I got stuck down there a little bit, so it is a...there's no question (mumbled) water comes down. What protection or engineering do you see that will not contribute to, um, some of the water issues down there, or even any erosion of the...of the sloped area, if that buffer is not, um, is reduced down to a 20-foot buffer? Speer: Well, that's something that I think Dwayne could answer more in detail, but uh, when I looked at the picture of the slope and so forth, I would anticipate, you know, that road's going to get raised a little bit. The...that slope actually will...will not be as extreme as you see it in the picture, because you know we're going to have a grading plan and that is probably an area where we'd be cutting. Uh, so you wouldn't have that big hillside coming down. Wilburn: Well, not...not where the road is, but the back of the homes, lots 8, 7, and 6, where they come right up on that. Speer: I'll defer that to Dwayne here. Wilburn: Okay. Musser: Ross, when those homes get built on that area, that typically when you build a home that water from the front half of the house goes towards the street, gets into the curb, into the gutter section, goes into the storm sewer. So, actually we should be decreasing the amount of run-off that goes into that area. Obviously when we do our construction, um, the first thing the City'll look for is the orange safety fence around that buffer, to keep all the construction activity out of that. The silt fence and all... and all the required CSR items to protect the erosion end of that wetland. So we...we will have that in place, um, we are grading that down, like...like Brian said, so we're looking to protect that area, reduce it, uh, that...I know a wetland is a wetland, but as far as quality and things like that, our wetland scientist is saying that that's, as far as a plant diversity and things like that, that it's pretty low-end, uh, as far as the diverse plant material in that. It's not in a blue-line stream. Um, like the main wetland going through there, therefore, that's why we're asking for the reduction. I believe that's why staff is recommending why we reduce that down to that 25-foot buffer. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 21 Wilburn: And one of the...issues that I'd brought up, and I mean, the City Attorney had indicated about, uh, in terms of...any work that a homeowner may do in the back of their yard, um...I mean, it's in their title where it would say where you can or cannot build, but I mean, um, if somebody starts doing some work down there, then they can be fined, but if it starts eroding down there, then the damage is done, so are there any other protections that you plan on (mumbled) Musser: Well, that outlot A, outlot A and B will be dedicated to the homeowner's association. We will be required to have, um, a maintenance agreement, as far as a covenance on how that has to be maintained, you know, once...the developer will build the wetlands. He has to maintain that and...and develop the plan per the approved Corp Engineer permit for at least five years. If it doesn't take hold, it'll be until it takes hold. So once that, once he gets that established, I'm assuming once enough residence are built, then that outlot will be dedicated to the homeowner's association, and they will have a covenance, a maintenance program, where they'll have to own and maintain these wetlands. So I guess it'll be up to the neighbors to police each other as far as protecting their outlots. Wilburn: I have a couple questions for Ron now, so unless anybody has any questions (mumbled) Bailey: Any other questions? (mumbled) developer? Okay, Ron. Wright: I have questions for Ron too, so this is good. Bailey: Okay. Wilburn: Ron, can you think of any other, um, developments, um, in the area where we've had, uh, you know, allowed some building on a...on a, near an allowable, critical slope like that, where um, we have not had issues with, um, run-off, erosion, contributing to a water issue in, uh, you know, in essentially a ravine back there, or some that have been problems? Knoche: I can't think of one right off hand, um, but with the construction site run- off ordinances that we have in place now, and the requirement for storm erosion management on site, it really takes care of a lot of t hose concerns. Where in the past we didn't have the requirements, on the individual lot level to maintain, um, you know, the sediments from running off the site, and we have that in place now. Wilburn: Are these the ones we passed maybe about three years ago? Knoche: Yeah, it was...it was three or four years ago. It was about the same time we passed our NPD (both talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 22 Wilburn: Right, okay. Um, go ahead, I've got to think of the other question I had for him. Wright: Um, kind of dovetailing into this conversation about the, uh, the drainage buffer between the development and the properties along Tucson...Tucson Place. Um, Ms. Sandler brought up a good point about, uh, additional water having an affect on septic systems. Is that, do you think that would be mitigated by this? Knoche: I...I don't know the answer to that. L ..I think if...if we, if a good job of grading is done and...and getting the water a better way to flow through there, I think it will help the ponding in that area there, um, but I don't know...I don't know what the effects will be on the...on the septic systems, and I think the concern that she had was more along the lines of being able to dig down there, and connect into the City sewer when the time comes. Bailey: Other questions for Ron? Hayek: Can you speak to the, uh, staffs decision that a reduction to 25-feet is acceptable, um... Knoche: L ..I can't. I, um, Bob can. Miklo: The, uh, sensitive areas ordinance requires 100-foot buffer for a wetland, but uh, sites, circumstances where it can be reduced, and if the area is not a pristine wetland, if it doesn't have endangered species, uh, it doesn't have standing water, uh, over a certain period of time, the ordinance does allow to get reduced up to, uh, 20...or down to 25 feet or up to a 75% reduction. We did review this, uh, proposal with a, uh, wetland specialist and it was her view that this was not a quality wetland, and therefore, uh, we went with her, uh, advice in terms of allowing it to be reduced. Hayek: Is that Liz Moss? Miklo: Right. Wilburn: Do you recall what period of time that, uh, that standing water? Miklo: I do not, without looking at (mumbled) Wilburn: Okay. Correia: Actually, I had a question for you, Bob. Could you go back to the slide from the, early in your presentation tonight, about...it showed the whole This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 23 southwest, I mean, not the whole Southwest District, but...and what percent of homes are a higher density or, we would say are connected? Miklo: There are approximately 475 single-family homes in this area, between...that does not include the County, or the land south of Rohret Road, but north of Rohret Road up to, uh, the creek, there are approximately 475 homes, 12 units are in a clustered development, three buildings with four units in each building. Correia: I mean, I would make the argument that the City has directed the developer, through our Comprehensive Plan, where we want to see divers housing in this district, um, and up to this point we're not...we're not seeing that, so I mean, I think that our...our plan does indicate the desire for mixed housing throughout the district, and so far we have very small percent. Wright: And we did talk about that the last time, and I wanted to see some, uh, some more diversity in housing stock, and I don't think low-200s a price range begins to address that. Correia: No, and I mean, we do have the housing market analysis, so we do have a market study that tells us that we have a need for moderate priced homes, and I wouldn't say that's...low-200 would be characterized as moderate. Wright: I do have one more question, I think it's for anybody who has a good recollection of our capital budget. What is the improvement of Rohret Road going to be costing us? Bailey: $3 million. Wright: Very good. Bailey: Is that right? Hayek: Question for, uh, go ahead. (several talking) Question for staff, but actually maybe Eleanor you can answer it, and it has to do with the conditional zoning agreement which speaks to, uh, the, um, the lack of vacation of Slothower Road, and allows them to go forward, and um, not just preliminary plat it, until that occurs, but if this CZA is enacted, doesn't that rezone outlot D into RS-5? Dilkes: Yeah, it...it, the rezoning occurs, the development cannot proceed until that vacation, um, takes place, but the actual rezoning occurs. So it's not that it converts to an undeveloped, or an outlot that hasn't yet been rezoned. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 24 Hayek: Okay, and if...so if it does rezone, then our ability to talk about the proposal staff came up with goes out the window. And if it's, is that correct? Dilkes: I believe so. Yes. Miklo: But once it's rezoned RS-5, you would have very little, uh, ability to negotiate shifting the road, requiring more open space, or considering clustering, uh, the RS-5 zoning would give the, uh, property owner the right to subdivide it into single-family RS-5 lots. Hayek: And if we modify the CZA to...hold off on that rezoning, at least for outlot D, then we can't...can we move forward tonight on that? Dilkes: My opinion is, is that if you change the CZA, or you indicate that you want to change the CZA to make it outlot D, as opposed to rezoning it, and having the condition with Slothower, then you need to at least given our ordinances have the Planning and Zoning Commission take a look at that. It very well maybe, since it's...if turning it into outlot D and reserving some of these issues for later date, may be acceptable to them, and they won't need to meet with you, but I think you at least have to give them that opportunity. It's my understanding that they meet again next Thursday. That issue could be, um, addressed with them at that time. It didn't require a formal meeting. You could move forward on April 6th. Um, and if you chose to collapse to...the readings to...to catch up on the time, you could do that then. Bailey: So we would...we would need to continue the public hearing and defer, and go from there. Dilkes: Right. You need to indicate what the, um, majority of you would like to see happen, and... Musser: It's our understanding if we do do the outlot D, and it is zoned, we still have to come back and preliminary plat that outlot D, and...and we still have the opportunity to cluster design on our own, um, and I think staff would still, if it's five or six years down the road, if we have a Rohret Road design, I think by doing another preliminary plat of outlot D, I believe City staff would have an opportunity to request more right-of--way at that time. Dilkes: The right-of--way issue could probably be resolved in connection with a preliminary platting, but the other issues you have regarding the use of that property could not, because once that rezoning is done, you lose your control over that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 25 Bailey: Any other clarifications? So, where are we with, um, how we'd like to move ahead? Correia: Well, I think it's the wrong plan, so I would...if we were voting on it, I would vote against it. Bailey: So...okay. Others? O'Donnell: I think it's...I think it's a great plan. Champion: I do too. O'Donnell: And we have a procedure in place where a developer comes in and works with our staff, and our Planning and Zoning Commission, and I'm sure all these questions were asked, and...you know, they passed muster with Planning and Zoning, as well as staff, so I will support the original plat. Champion: With outlot...with the new outlot. O'Donnell: With the new outlot (several talking) Bailey: Would you restate what you just told us Eleanor, about how that (both talking) Dilkes: Okay, it looks to me then that we have two people who need to defer and...and at least say what P&Z has to say about it, and then continue with the...with that revised, revision, changing it to outlot D next time. We can't vote tonight on...on making it outlot D. Bailey: It can't be outlot D tonight. (several talking) Okay. So we can't do that tonight. Others? Wilburn: Just some general comments, I mean, I...cause the...the...two of the questions I raised last time, um, one was related to that open space and the possibility of clustering, and it seems to me it would be a...a fair exchange, if only in the CZA, to you know, if we're going to...if we're going to require some of it to be out in what would be the southern half, to...to give up some of that from the northern half of the open space, um, and that's just from kind of walking the area, um, and thinking about who might be living in the area. Uh, that seems to me to be a fair negotiated thing. In terms of the, um, I'm not an engineer. I was the wrong type of engineer, cause the type of engineer I was was just kind of, um, related to military stuff, and not, uh, wetlands. Um... Champion: I drove the City Park train once! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 26 Wilburn: What's that? Correia: What? (laughter) Champion: I said I drove the City Park train once. Wilburn: I appreciate the, uh, um, the concern related to, um, that buffer, and um, um...and I don't know the particular wetland person, you have some light on that, but L ..I do know that since we passed those, um, those changes in how some of the, uh, when construction goes on, when we made that change, uh, three...three and a half years ago, that has made some differences in terms of run-off and things like that. Um, and um, you know, in terms of...in terms of Rohret Road, um, you know, if um, I think Ron's memo on that was pretty good, and if we can...if we can move some things, if that just involves filling in, then I think that does the...the best we can of working with a development that's going to go in, because you do have, they do have builder's rights, but this is the point where we have whatever authorities we can to try and influence that, so... Bailey: So, you're deferring. Wilburn: Yeah. Uh-huh. Wright: I would...I would be willing to go along with continuing the public hearing and deferring, as well. I think, um, I'm not satisfied with the, with the possibilities for outlot D under the straight RS-5 zoning. I think we can do better than that, particularly since the City is going to have some investment in Rohret Road for this. I think it's, uh, within our purview to ask a little bit more in terms of...of real diversity in housing (mumbled) and it maybe several years down the road, but the...I'd certainly like to hear what P&Z has to say about this, and (mumbled) Wilburn: Can I ask one more question of Eleanor? Um, I get...I think Matt was getting at this, um, correct me if I misquote him...misstate your intention. If we...if this, if there's no agreement here, um, and their allowed to, um, build under the current zoning, uh, or the RS-5 zoning, then our ability try and, um, influence, whether it's diversity of housing or...or clustering, any of that, it is essentially gone, is that correct? (several responding) So that's the challenge when it comes to, if someone does have builder's rights under an existing zoning, um, you know, if we...if we, uh, lose that attempt, then some overall more broad City goals that we've had, um, kind of go out the window, especially in terms of some of the housing issues. Um, and...um, if we, I mean, it's our policy if we have a disagreement with P&Z then we've got to give them the right to meet with us. We also have the ability, um, and I understand your timing, but we also have the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #4b Page 27 ability to collapse some readings on ordinances once we move along, so we can do two readings of an ordinance in one...one night. Bailey: It seems like we need a motion to continue the public hearing. Wilburn: I move to continue the public hearing until...Apri1 6th. (several talking) Bailey: Hearing a motion and a second, any further discussion? All those in favor of continuing the public hearing to Apri16 say aye. Those opposed say nay. Okay, motion carries. We need a... Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Wilburn: Move to accept correspondence. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. Hayek: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. All those in favor say yeah...yes. Those opposed say (laughter and several talking) those opposed same sign. Okay. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) (DEFERRED FROM 3/10) Wilburn: Move to defer, uh, first consideration of the ordinance. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Seconded by O'Donnell. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed say nay. Okay, motion carries. We will, um, take a break until 8:30. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #5 ITEM 5. Bailey: AMENDING THE FY2009 OPERATING BUDGET. a) PUBLIC HEARING Page 28 This is a public hearing (bangs gavel). The public hearing is open, and we have our Finance Director Kevin O'Malley to make some comments. O'Malley: Honorable Mayor, Esteemed Council, I'm here to, uh, recommend adoption of this resolution, uh, normally we only have two amendments during the year, but this year we had to take advantage of several opportunities, uh, we took advantage of about $45 million in bond refunding that we did in October, and we plan on doing one in April, and we've taken advantage of some, uh, industrial park, uh, property that we purchased. Need to have authorization for that. And also for some flood monies, that we received from the State in order to spend those. So that's the...the crux of the large dollars. There's a few small amendments in there, but you'll see the other amendments coming in, uh, May for our final amendment. Are there any questions? Bailey: Any questions for Kevin? O'Malley: I did have a handout. I'm not sure if it speaks to, uh, what Council Member Matt Hayek asked for last night, but uh, if you want I can go through it item-by-item. Hayek: You know, when I asked for that last night it didn't, I don't need it for tonight, and I'd be happy...it would help for me to have something that links up to the memo (both talking) O'Malley: Sure, I can do that. Hayek: I don't need it for tonight. So, as you're able to get to it. O'Malley: LTh, by the way, this does not increase our tax, property tax asking. This is just the authorization to spend, uh, receipt of funds. Any questions? Bailey: Okay, any other...any questions? Okay, thank you. (several responding) Others wishing to speak at the public hearing? (bangs gavel) Public hearing is closed. b) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Champion: Move the resolution. O'Donnell: Second. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #5 Page 29 Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #g Page 30 ITEM 8. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "USE OF PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY," CHAPTER 11, ENTITLED "FARMER'S MARKET," TO ALLOW THE FARMERS MARKET TO TAKE PLACE AT LOCATIONS OTHER THAN CHAUNCEY SWAN PARKING RAMP AND CHAUNCEY SWAN PARK. (FIRST CONSIDERATION Lombardo: Madame Mayor? Bailey: Um, I need...it to be moved. Wilburn: Move first consideration...second. Wright: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Wright, or vice versa, um, discussion? Roll call. (several talking) Oh, discussion, sorry! Lombardo: By way of background, um, I...I'd asked staff several months ago to begin to explore opportunities for, um, either long-term moving Farmers Market, or at least in the interim, to...to create opportunity on a limited basis for Farmers Market to be held, um, in and around downtown. There's a committee that's been working on this, uh, it wasn't until I came back from vacation on Monday that I even knew that there was an ordinance attached to this. The process plan has been to, uh, meet with the vendors April 9th. That meeting is scheduled for 6:00 P.M. at Mercer Park, um, and then come back to Council at the next meeting, in April, to kind of present this in...in a more complete way, so from my perspective the...the work in on- going. I understand that there was a press release, uh, an untimely press release, um, I'm not in a position to be able to discuss how or why it was released, um, early. So the process was compromised, but my intent is to...to meet with the vendors and meet with, you know, the committee and...April 9th, to further discuss this, and bring this to view in a more complete package so I, I mean, the...the evidence of an ordinance certainly complicates it, and again, it wasn't, I wasn't aware that there was an ordinance in place until yesterday. I haven't been able to really think through now what the implications of proceeding under this would be, because there's a series of readings that would have to take place and...and from my perspective the work on this is still ongoing, as we've not met with the vendors yet. Bailey: Who's on that committee? Lombardo: I...I don't have, I mean, the committee is...there's a core group. It's Rick Fosse and Susan Craig, Tammy, um... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #8 Bailey: Staff, okay. Page 31 Lombardo: And...and others, I, but they...others have been involved at different, um, stages to discuss different aspects of...of traffic flow or, you know, my understanding is that...um, folks from the...the DTA have been involved at different times to talk about implications for businesses. Mary (mumbled) from Summer of the Arts has been involved at different times, or perhaps even throughout. The...my expectation was that we were all going to meet together, the committee, and discuss kind of what they've found and then continue the meeting, as I said, April 9th with the vendors, and so I'm not...I'm not in a position to provide a recommendation for moving forward. Again, this is intended to be at your April meeting, uh, to more fully discuss. Champion: So actually because there's been a lot of confusion about this ordinance, which just allows us to put it somewhere else. We haven't talked about putting it anywhere else, so we can settle everybody down by just voting this ordinance down. Wilburn: Or we could defer it indefinitely, either way we've got the draft of the ordinance. Champion: The ordinance can always come back to us. Correia: I think there's...I think there's a couple of questions -one is, I mean, the...the ordinance reads: vendors and others are interested in expanding. I mean, the communication we've had from vendors is that they're not, and I mean, I think the other thing that the ordinance does is it says it does indicate there is a specific intersection, um, although it doesn't specify that it would be (mumbled) open air including, you know, intersection of Iowa Avenue and Dubuque Street, um, and I guess I have a couple of questions. One is why do we have it...why do we need to have an ordinance specifying where the Farmers Market is at all. Why don't we...we have a Farmers Market and we have it where we have it. Um, I think in some communities there are boards that, you know, maybe report to a Parks and Rec Commission or are...we use our Parks and Rec Commission to give us direction on the Farmers Market, um... Bailey: And that would be another process question I have too, is when does this, I mean, has this gone through Parks and Rec Commission? (both talking) Lombardo: Parks and Rec Commission .... no. Bailey: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #8 Page 32 Correia: I think that we had, I think a mistake was made with having a press release go out, making statements that were not really...could be made, and so (mumbled) catch up, it was caught, we have an ordinance, we can't say this unless this ordinance is changed, and I don't know that that's a very good process for making a change on a really...something that is a jewel in Iowa City, um, I think it's...I think it's...I mean, I'd like to see conversations about could we move it at some times to an open air, um, but I don't know that this process is... Champion: It's wrong! Correia: Or it's just gotten a bit jumbled. It needs to be fixed! Before we proceed, so I would...I would support just voting this down and developing a process that feels like there has been, um...(several talking) Bailey: ... lot of people here, can we illuminate some of this, um, history of why we have an ordinance, because some people have said that that's not necessary, but as I understand it, it was felt at one time that that was an important consideration for some consistency, um, for some decisions that were being made, so Eleanor, can you give... Dilkes: We have an ordinance regarding the Farmers Market as part of our, um, our, the title in the code that deals with use of our public streets and our public places, and we have found as many cities have that the more clear you can be about the rules for use of those spaces, the better you off...you are in terms of...of enforcing those rules. That's I think the history of it. It...because the Farmers Market has been at Chauncey Swan for so many years, the definition of Farmers Market includes a reference to Chauncey Swan. Um, in addition, the ordinance, which is very brief, um, sets forth the requirements for making an application to be a vendor, um, the grounds on which you can deny an application to be a vendor, um, that...that kind of thing. If...if you wanted to scrap the ordinance you could. I wouldn't recommend it. Um, but you could. Um, what happened is...my office saw the press release that there was going to be a move to, uh, Iowa Avenue, and one of my assistants said to me, you know, the definition'll have to be changed because that's not gonna work. My office does not sit on this committee. Um, the person we communicate with is at the Parks and Rec Department, Tammy, who I understood sat on this commission...committee, and had received direction about putting that press release out...out. We had a number of conversations with...um, Tammy; said we need to change the ordinance. I said fine, yeah, let's change it since that's the direction it looks like we're going, and we put it on the agenda. So, all the ordinance does is take out the reference to Chauncey Swan. O'Donnell: And it says you have the ability to have it somewhere else. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #8 Dilkes O'Donnell Page 33 That's what it does. I...I'm very happy with the Farmers Market where it is, and I know everybody is, and... Dilkes: Can...can I just interrupt you for a minute, Mike? The ordinance is such a nothing. It's so incidental to any of this. You know? I was just fixing it because I thought that's where we were going. (several responding) So I don't care what you do with the ordinance -defer it, vote it down, do whatever you want. The issue is what you're going to do with the Farmers Market, and that's what needs to be addressed. Champion: Exactly, and...and that's, but this is the wrong order to address it. (several responding) And it's created so much hype. I've had more calls about this than I had about the flood! (laughter) Seriously! Lombardo: Just a process question - if...if it's voted down tonight, does that preclude them from revisiting it at any time, during a certain time period? Dilkes: No. (several talking) Champion: I'm going to move we vote this thing down and get it over with. Bailey: Well, it's on the floor, so we can simply take a roll call vote and um, vote accordingly. Hayek: Eleanor, is there any distinction between deferring indefinitely and voting it down? That matters, other than symbolically. Dilkes: Not really, cause there's no public hearing requirement and so we don't have that issue. So I...I really, you know, it doesn't matter. Karr: I'd just like to clarify one additional comment is that often through the years there maybe items in our code that the, we may not have to include in our code, but because of staffs request for clarification it's often better explained in the code so they can hand it to individuals and... and so it is not as sporadic a decision and...and can't change. So I think again this goes back to a time when this was really requested to be clarified and nailed down. Now we're at a time where we want some flexibility. No decision has to be made on this, and I don't think there is a distinction between deferring (several talking) Champion: Well, I mean, I think because the process was flawed, we have a lot of people out here who are upset about the possibility of the paper saying we're going to move it. So I...I would just like to vote it down and start This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #g Page 34 over. Start the process, and meet with the farmers and...and see what they'd like done with it, and are there other possibilities. Doesn't mean it can't come back to us. It just should have never been here in the first place. O'Donnell: Is that a motion? Bailey: No, we've got a motion (several talking) on the floor. And I do want to acknowledge that there are a lot of you who have been here for quite some time to speak to this issue, and I think you've been heard without approaching the podium, and so we're going to proceed with this roll call vote and um, save us all, and then we'll have the opportunity to have this discussion, um, in a process that involves a little bit more discussion and input and back and forth. So, any further discussion from Council? Wright: We have talked this one out. Our process broke. Bailey; Roll call. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Wilburn: So moved. Champion: So moved...oh, second. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Champion. All those in favor say aye. Champion: Thank you all for coming! (several talking) Bailey: Thank you, thank you! Dieterle: Is there going to be somewhere where a person can sign up to be part of the discussion that's ongoing then? Bailey: I'm sure if you email the Council, we will pass that on to the appropriate body. Pavelka: I'm Lois Pavelka. I'm one of those farmers and vendors. Could you clarify that for us, please? Bailey: Please email the Council at, what is it, council ci,iowa-city.org if you're interested in participating in a discussion regarding this, and I know that you all communicate with Tammy at the Parks...okay...because of the Farmers Market, you can also indicate that to her. Pavelka: Okay. You realize a lot of us are here prepared to speak. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. ##8 Page 35 Bailey: I realize that (several talking and laughing) I think that you can rest assured that you were heard, and that there are.... Pavelka: We will have an opportunity. Bailey: Yes! Lombardo: April 9th at Mercer Park. There's...letters have been sent out. We'll provide additional information about that and send 'em out again! Pavelka: All of us that are here tonight, or most of us, would like to have a secret paper ballot vote (mumbled) So I've made (several talking) Bailey: Well... Karr: I'm sorry. Lois, what was your last name? Pavelka: Pavelka. Bailey: Okay, so April 9th. Pavelka: Okay. I'll be there. Bailey: You're always welcome to communicate with us, or any other staff members. Moving along. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #10 Page 36 ITEM 10. 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. (a) CONSIDER A MOTION TO RECONSIDER A RESOLUTION Champion: I'll move that. Bailey: Moved by Champion. Hayek: I'll second it. Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. Discussion? Champion: Well, can we talk about your memo? That we got last night? Dilkes: It's a confidential memo. You can talk about (mumbled) (several talking and laughing) Let me just summarize for you. Bailey: Okay. Dilkes: Um, you have a binding contract, um, which we need to think about as we go through this process. Champion: Well, um, I'm...I did make a mistake by voting for this at this time, even though I totally support (mumbled) with the firemen. I'm willing to admit...I don't always change my mind, because I get ten phone calls or five letters, but...the people who voted no were right, and I was wrong, um, but I don't think we can just throw it out the window because there are binding contracts, so...maybe Eleanor can help us. Dilkes: This is what I would...what, I've talked to, um, I think Marcia has talked to the artist and I've talked to the, um, artist's lawyer, and I think the artist understands the financial/political nature of this issue, and I tried to relay that it has absolutely nothing to do with his art, um, and I think they're amenable to...to working with us, to try and come to some mutually agreeable resolution. So what I have suggested to Mike is that, um, that if...if you want to explore that possibility, then go ahead and vote to reconsider, and then we will...then I would suggest that you subsequently defer the reconsideration until April 6th to give us some time to have those discussions, and that will occur actually before the first payment is due under the contract. So, I think that timing will work out. Champion: Thank you, Eleanor. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #10 Page 37 Wright: Yeah, and I appreciate your efforts in this and the, uh, person that made the request to be considered to Council, um, I didn't know, I probably should have guessed the contract was already binding, but um, I think (mumbled) Champion: It has to actually (mumbled) by the majority vote, doesn't it? (several talking) Yes. Wright: Yeah, and so somebody who voted in favor of...I was in the position to (mumbled) Karr: So was Connie. Wright: And my disappointment in myself, and...and uh, frankly with all of us is that we...in my opinion, this slipped through without our following our own dated process for prioritizing our budget and uh, you may have gotten more emails about this, about the Farmers Market than we did about the flood. I got more emails about the sculpture (mumbled) Champion: Well, um, it was a bad decision on my part. Bailey: Any other discussion? Wilburn: The only comment I'll add is that, uh, whether you feel it's a mistake on...on your individual parts, you know, that's for you all to...to decide, um, I'd just like to point out we're not, uh, there are several things that are ongoing between now and the time we finish the prioritization process that we're not stopping, we're not shutting down City operations until we make that decision and L ..I respect your decision, your right to, you know, to reconsider, even though the contract already had been binding, but um, if there's concern about something looking, I'm not going to get into the fund, you know, how, the why's of...of um, fund balance and all that which fiscal years that the funding came from, but if there's concern about something looking bad at a particular time of year, uh, I would point out as we go into prioritization process, uh, there's some things that we have in there, again, the City is going to be funding that, you know, we've go the Summer of...the Summer of the Arts that we're considering funding, and um, you know, I mean, I...I and several, we're willing to fund firefighters, unfortunately what happened again, I recognize you're right, but the message got out and people...I had people telling me thank you for supporting the artwork. I had people approaching me in church saying why are you saying that the piece of art is more important than a firefighter? Well, if that's the logic that you're going to use, if that's all you're looking, my only point is we all as a community have different values in terms of what we're willing to fund or not, and so uh, I would This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #10 Page 38 just, um, you know, if you're going to restrict yourself by what you're willing to fund during the prioritization process that um, you know, you recommend...recommend you be consistent because, uh, you know, fireworks -that's the part that's going to be coming up, and if your logic is firefighters -fireworks, um, you know, I don't, um, I don't think you're...that you would be acknowledging what each of us value. The main overall point is, uh, a wise friend of mine told me, um, that uh, when you're doing budgeting any one person can balance the city budget. Getting two of us to do it exactly the same way is challenging. Getting four of us to do it exactly the same way is even more challenging, and you can go on through it, you know, neighbors versus neighbors. So it's a difficult, challenging thing. We've made a commitment to, um, you know, uh, this prioritization process. We had some negotiating in terms of what we were going to continue, but we can't go through the year as different projects coming up, revisiting the budget, revisiting the budget...uh, we can do that, but it has...it will have a negative impact on the city's ability to carry out, especially capital projects, throughout the course of the year. Um, you know, when we do that budget, in my opinion, that's the time to really hash these things out, cause if we put staff in a position where they're not sure they can start running with a project to get everything that needs to happen, to get it done, um, you know, we're going to start increasing costs of different projects because of...because of delays and um, you know, so...so I guess, again, we are...I thought we had set a pretty good tone in terms of coming into the, uh, prioritization process. I just hope that continues forward, and once we make that decision, we make the decision and we move on. Um, and I know that it can get lost in conversation, excitement about any one particular budget line item, um, but uh, you know, just um...remember, again, city operations are not shutting down. We've got um, several things that are going to be, uh, ongoing and uh, you know, we'll get it done. We'll make the tough decisions, but let's continue in the spirit of cooperation and trying to hash out this budget so we can again move on with the rest of the agenda for the year. Bailey: You know, I agree with what you said, um, Ross, about people having different values about budgeting and what we appreciate about the city, but one of the things that, as a city, our budget reflects our values and um, when I voted for this, I was very comfortable voting for this because one, I understood that it wasn't going to impact firefighters. I understood, and I think many people do understand that, but also in fiscal year 09 we had agreed to a $50,000, um, authorization for public art, and that commission went about and did its work, and then in the budget for 10 we did the same thing, and that commission, um, did its work, and counted on those, um, authorizations and subsequently the appropriations. So I felt very comfortable that we had reflected what we valued in our approval of those budgets, and um, followed through with those values, um, and a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #10 Page 39 community value of public art, our cultural infrastructure, by supporting this project. Um, and I continue to support this project, and people have asked great questions about this. Is this the time, uh, to really be funding this at this time, and um, I thought about those long and hard, because one of the things Ernie used to say is that the most important thing about this work is can you get up and face yourself in the mirror the next morning, and so when I thought about this vote, I was very comfortable with it, because I believed that yes, we could afford it at this time, given the small amount of cost, um, to our debt service levy, I mean, it's pennies per thousand, um, for art, and that to me reflects the cultural value. I appreciate your right to reconsider, and...and how you followed through with that process, um, but I'm just pointing out my perspective here, and do look forward to some very, um, rigorous conversations about prioritization and the input from the community, because we do all come at this with different financial values, but as a community we have collective values, and especially in tough times, we have to embrace those values, otherwise we have nothing, um, to get us through. So...that's...that's still my perspective on this project. Further discussion? Correia: Um, besides, I mean, I'm not going to restate what I said at the last meeting, um, but besides that, I did feel it was not the right time and other reasons, that I...I do feel uncomfortable by the...the cost of this one project, and that we, um, after...I mean, I supported the art in the Rec Center. I think it's a wonderful, um, piece of...piece of art, um, but after that vote I felt, started to question do...should we be spending such a large amount on one piece of art as part of our public art program, um, and I was just in Dubuque last week, walking along the Riverwalk and there's sculptures all along the Riverwalk and there were, I read, um, information about the sculptures and the Dubuque Arts' Commission provided stipends to ten artists to allow them to do their art, have uh, a year's worth of, um, place to, um (several talking) yeah, and then...it's for sale, and then at the end of that year to, um, they can sell the art, and it's that type of public art that feels like it's more inclusive, includes more people, and is not...so I think that, if our role is to give...come up with a direction for our public art, for the public art, our Public Art Committee, I mean, I would, you know, I mean, I'd like to explore that, you know, type of...type of, uh, public art versus one big project. We do one a year type of a thing, um, but as well as, yes, the dollars that we spend on public art are different from the dollars that we might spend on operating, they're still tax levy dollars. You know, we have a lot of people in this community that, um, are having, you know, their income is less. Their retirement is less. Um, but they still owe the same amount of taxes, um and I think we do need to be talking about, you know, what can our property tax payers afford, and what can we...what can we afford, um, and lean times require scaling back on certain things, and I think that it's not, um, unwise to think of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #10 Page 40 where to scale back, and this was one area that I felt could be scaled back on, and we're considering that. Champion: Well, I hope eventually we can get this project done. I think it's a wonderful project. I don't think it's that expensive. I just think at this time it seems incredibly expensive to a lot of people in the community, who have their hours cut at work, who aren't working as much, or as long. Who don't have as much money to spend. Who are...the number of people increasingly using the Crisis Center, I mean, it's...it isn't a lot of money per person, when you think it's $80,000, but it's just...I just don't think it's the right time, and L ..I'm...I love the project, but I can't support it any longer. Bailey: Well, and I, you know, I know that we've all been very thoughtful about this, and I...I really respect all the different perspectives, but one of the things we do forget are, and I've heard from some artists, they're also small business owners who have had, who have been impacted by the economy. I mean, you know, it's everyone and, you know, you can make the case and...and I do have concerns about this contractual agreement, with a small business owner, but... Hayek: Um, I uh, I think that there is a distinction between budgeting and spending, and...and tough economic times like this, that distinction becomes even more important, is why we're having this discussion, um, and I also think, and this echoes Amy's comments, that um, it...I don't think it's wise for us to distinguish, uh, capital expenditures from personnel expenditures, when at the end of the day those two go through their own levies and marry up in the same tax bill that goes to homeowners, and when we were talking about funding the firefighters, we made a decision, uh, a tough decision to drop our capital expenditures by over $2 million, so that we could reduce our debt levy, so that we could increase our emergency levy to come up with the personnel dollars to pay for the firefighters. So, those two did go hand-in-hand, and...and that's what we go through every year with our...with our budget, and those are very tough decisions, but be that as it may, I think what this all points to is a prioritization process that's very important, and Ross, you alluded to that, and we're just going to have to jump in and get that worked on. Wright: Thank you, Matt, that summed it up very well. Bailey: Roll call. Dilkes: Don't need a roll call. It's... Karr: It's a motion to... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #10 Page 41 Bailey: All those in favor of reconsidering the resolution say aye. Those opposed say nay. Okay, motion carries 5 to 2, Bailey and Wilburn voting in the negative. Entertain a motion to defer the resolution. (b) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Wright: And we're deferring to April 6th meeting. Bailey: Moved by Wright to defer the resolution until April 6th. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? All those in favor of deferral say aye. Those opposed say nay. Motion carries 7-0. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Wilburn: So moved. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. Wright: You feel like you've got good direction from us? Bailey: Uh, okay, can we, um, moved by Wilburn, do I have a second? (several commenting) Wright: Second. Bailey: Okay, seconded by Wright. All those in favor say aye. Okay. Wright: Excuse me for that. Bailey: Go ahead! Did you want to... Wright: You've got all the direction you need from the Council? Dilkes: Yeah, I think...I think I do. I mean, I think we're going to have issues about what the artist might have done to date, um, because of this contract, and we'll just have to work through those and, but I think we can (mumbled) Bailey: All right. All right, moving along. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #11 Page 42 ITEM 11. CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE POLICE LABOR RELATIONS ORGANIZATION OF IOWA CITY. Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. Wright: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Wright. Discussion? Hayek: I, um, I'm not going to support this, um, with great reluctance, because I have the utmost respect for our law enforcement, um, but as I did with the, uh, the firefighters' contract, um, L ..I have great concern that the degree of, the amount of raise, uh, is not something we can afford, especially when you throw in the health and retirement benefits that I...I understand are, are the purview of the State, but nevertheless get paid by the City, um, and I just can't support that, uh, when our budget is what it is. Um, but these are comments I made several weeks ago with respect to the firefighters' contract, and L ..I need to be consistent on that. Champion: And I'm not going to support it either, for the same reasons. Uh, but also, even though it says it's an only one year agreement, that's with the argument that other Council Members used to pass it, it may only be a one year agreement, but it is the base then for next year. So it's more than a one year agreement. It's aroll-over agreement. And I can't support it. Correia: We did, I mean, I will support it. I mean, we did include 3.1 % raise in the budget that we passed for our non-bargaining employees. I mean, I...I opened it up for discussion in our work session to consider decreasing that amount for non-bargaining employees and... and you know potentially even doing (mumbled) caps so, or wage caps, so and that wasn't...we do have the ability to do that in our non-bargaining, and so I don't want to just carve out one class of City staff, because we...it's a separate consideration. Wright: One of the things that L ..I thought about this quite a bit, but I kept coming back to, uh, back when we were working on the budget and talking about some of these issues, the...the fact that we did approve the same increase for the firefighters, um, and that had we not approved the increase, um (mumbled) we would have, we might not have done particularly well if this had gone into (mumbled) and it could have come back with a higher figure. Given the fact that there was a one year, we were far from having a sure thing, um, I supported it at that time. I will continue to support it this time. Next year, I think we'll be in a different playing field, and uh, doubt it will be quite such a quick ride. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #11 Page 43 Bailey: Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Those opposed say nay. Okay, motion carries 5 to 2, Champion and Hayek in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #12 ITEM 12. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS. Page 44 Bailey: At last night's meeting we informally agreed to appoint Pam Michaud to the Historic Preservation Commission to represent the College Green district. Laura Bergus and Brett Gordon to the Telecommunications Commission. Uh, I would entertain a motion to that effect. Wright: So moved. Bailey: Moved by Wright. Hayek: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. All right, those opposed say nay. Motion carries, and then we also, um, had a... Wilburn: Youth Advisory Commission. Bailey: ...yeah, to defer. Wilburn: Um, I would, uh, I would make a recommendation to the Council that we, um, appoint Jerry Gao, he's a West High student; he's involved in Community Leadership Program, uh, very active in the community and volunteer at the Library. Um... Bailey: Okay. Do I have a second for that motion? Hayek: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. Any further discussion? All those in favor of appointing Jerry Gao to the Youth Advisory Commission say aye. Okay, those opposed same...say nay. Motion carries...?-0. Okay. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Wilburn: So moved. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. Wright: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Wright. All those in favor say aye. Okay, motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #15 Page 45 ITEM 15. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Bailey: Let's start with Amy. Correia: Nothing. Bailey: Mr. Hayek? Okay. Wilburn: Nothing. O'Donnell: Nothing. Champion: I just want to point out to the public, uh, that the Grant Wood and Wetherby Neighborhood Association are having a huge garage sale on Saturday April 4th, and they're asking for donations. The money raised at this garage sale will go to a splash pad fund that they've been raising money for for two years? (several talking) They have done a great job, so if you have anything you can donate to them, you can take it to Grant Wood School on Friday April 3rd from 6:00 to 8:00, or early that Saturday morning, or I'm sure if you call over there, they'll find somebody to pick it up, but this is a really going to be a great neighborhood asset, and this group has worked very hard to fund this. Or you can just send 'em money too! Bailey: Mike? Wright: Nothing, I was going to talk about the garage sale as well. Bailey: Okay. Wright: Two of us just think it's absolutely top-notch! Bailey: Well, and this is something that came up last night. I wanted to talk about this display at the Solon Public Library. It's called "Carousel" and it's a display dedicated to the Drollinger family rides that are in City, were in City Park, and it, the display runs at the Solon Library, um, through April 4th, and they sent an invitation inviting Iowa City, um, the Iowa City community to come up and see the display, and I think you were also talking to our Library about... Champion: I dropped off information at our Library today, cause the Drollingers are really a part of Iowa City history. It'd be fun to have it here. Bailey: Yeah, it would be great, but if you, um, can get, go up to Solon and see this. It looks, it looks very cool. It's an amazing carousel (mumbled) photograph. So...also, the ARC is having its chili supper this Friday, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #15 Page 46 March 27th, from 4:30 to 7:30 P.M. um, at River Community Church, which is at 3001 Muscatine Avenue, and this is a, is a fundraiser to help provide services to children and adults with disabilities, and the ARC is one of our great, um, community organizations, so a chili supper this Friday night. And also, the Legislative Forum sponsored by the, uh, League of Women Voters this Saturday in Emma Harvat Hall starting at 9:30. I would encourage people to attend that. It's a great opportunity to hear what's been going on in Des Moines. And talk to our legislators. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #16 Page 47 ITEM 16. REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF. Bailey: City Manager? Lombardo: Uh, I received information that the Airport will be receiving I think it's about $2.5 million for runway improvements, visa vie the stimulus bill, uh, I'll provide, uh, additional detail in my next update to you. Mike Tharp is providing me a summary. I'm pulling together that At a Glance and I'll provide more information (mumbled) but congratulations to the Airport! Bailey: Okay. Dale? (mumbled) City Attorney? City Clerk? Karr: Uh, just to clarify, you'll start your, uh, priority setting sessions next week, and the response to a question, we are starting all of the sessions at 5:30, and at the present time they are not televised. Bailey: Okay. Is there any interest in having them televised? (several commenting) Okay. Wilburn: Well, we did it for the budget sessions, so... Karr: You did it for one. Wilburn: Did for one? Karr: Of the budget sessions, uh-huh. You did it for your CIP. Wilburn: Oh, okay (mumbled) Bailey: I think it's something we should consider. There's a lot of community interest in this, and there's, I think it would be a good thing, if there are others (several talking) so do we have...one, two, three... Hayek: I'm...how many do we, um, how many priority sessions...(both talking) Karr: Four. At the present time. Hayek: I'd be fine with...with not televising the first one, while we figure out how we're going to attack this, but if people want to start from the first one, I'm absolutely fine with that too. Bailey: I think it's something that we need a lot of, um, transparency about. So, televising it is a way to do that. So I think we have support to do so. If you would contact...yeah. Well, you don't know how many people will watch, so it might be just to balance out. We'll televise (both talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009. #16 Champion: Oh, I don't think it's a bad idea. Bailey: Okay, anything else? All right. Page 48 This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the special formal Iowa City City Council meeting of March 24, 2009.