Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-06 Public hearing~) Publish 3/30 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on April 6, 2009, in Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: an ordinance rezoning approximately 100- acres of land located on both sides of 420th Street SE, west of Taft Avenue from Interim Development(ID-I)to General Industrial (I-1) (REZ09-00002) Copies of the proposed ordinance are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 10th day of March, 2009, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: An ordinance rezoning 18.58-acres of land located north of Rohret Road from Interim Development Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5), 44.29 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5), and 82.3 acres from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD- 5). Copies of the proposed ordinances and resolutions are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK ~~y~~ 31~ `~ < ~~ 4~ Marian Karr From: ICJewells [ICJewells@mchsi.com] Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 4:36 PM To: Council Subject: Presentation Regarding Rezoning & Development Proposal for Country Club Estates Attachments: CCE Council Presentation - v1.pdf L=:J CCE Council Presentation - vl.... This correspondence will become a public record. Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Member, Please find attached a copy of a presentation that I hope to cover briefly during tomorrow's City Council meeting for item #6 on the agenda. My apologies for not getting this to you sooner, however I would request that you take the time to review it in more detail prior to the final vote regarding the rezoning and development proposal for Country Club Estates. Sincerely, Larry Jewell 1 Country Club Estates Rezoning and Development Proposal REZ0800011/SUB08 - 00010 Monday, April 6, 2009 La r ry ~ ewe I I Agenda . Objectives of Rezoning and Development . City, Developer, Citizens . Key Statement From Southwest District Plan . Goals of Collaboration . Current Rezoning and Development Proposal . Summary -Financial Impact of Rezoning and Development . CCE SW Area Concept Plan . Recommendations for Consideration City -Objectives of Rezoning and Development • Continued, responsible growth • Full development of land within the City limits • Efficient use of investment in infrastructure • Counter urban sprawl . Adherence to Comprehensive Plan and SW District Plan . Well-planned Neighborhoods . Inclusion of well-planned, mixed housing (diversity of housing) options Protection of wetlands and other sensitive areas/features . A North-South connecting street (Melrose to Rohret) Developer -Objectives of Rezoning and Development . Well-planned development . Maximize return on investment (ROI) . Desire to move forward quickly . Minimize zoning and platting contingencies; . Abandonment of south Slothower Road . Unapproved adjacent property zoning/platting . Unsettled green/park space location . Inclusion of Rohret and Slothower in City CIP Neighbors -Objectives of Rezoning and Development • Well-planned neighborhood designed through collaboration • Adherence to Comprehensive and Southwest District Plans, speci fically; Preserve rural character of existing area Retention of existing large-growth trees along Rohret Road (wind breaks, privacy, transition) . Integration into existing neighborhoods (e.g. preserve integrity) Effective transition between existing neighborhoods and new development utilizing larger RS5 planned lots Prevention of negative impact on existing properties Protection of wetlands and other sensitive areas/features . Inclusion of well-planned mixed housin (diversity of housing) options • Safe efficient network of streets -preventing cut-through . Adequate green/park space -centrally located • Use of connecting trails throughout development Key Statement from the Southwest District Plan "The remaining portion of the Country Club Estates property is primarily suitable for low-density single-family development. If well-designed, the portion of the property adjacent to Rohret Road may be suitable for clusters of medium-density residential uses, such as townhouses or condominiums. A transition between existing Rural Residential-zoned (RR-1) portions of Southwest Estates and future low-density single- family residential development to the west may be accomplished by platting lar er RS-5-zoned lots backing onto the existing rural residential lots of Southwest Estates." Goal of true collaboration should be to... DEVEL PEA NEIGHBORS Strike a balance! CITY Current Rezoning and Development Proposal Request to rezone from larger 1-acre lots (RR1) to smaller 5-acre lots (RS5) Platted for 170 new lots in for proposed new development . Inclusion of a Collector Street -Lake Shore Drive . 4.69 acre lot for green/park space in northwest section of proposed development -not centrally located No trails included in current proposal -only 8' sidewalk along Rohret Road . Single family homes only - no multi-family mixed housing Reduction of wetland buffer from 100' to 25' (minimum allowed) in key watershed area • Poor transition from larger existing lots despite clearly being called for in the Southwest District Plan Current Rezoning and Development Proposal ~~ ~. h~ ~ ,.. as.~i. !" 9L ~ k n ~. _. 7 a v ~, Psh ~ x mc8 " ~ ~~~ ~, :. ~ i ~ ~~ yy 4 C ' 4 ~ g a. ~ . .. y }3 e ~$a ~ ~ ~ ,m ~ ~~ m _ ~~ i 3 ~ ~! tid ~? ,~.~ b < ~ xF _ say rv~~, 1, ~E ~1 4~ 3. %i Focus on Southern Subsection of Proposed Development -Summary .Southern subsection currently consists of: . Total "buildable" acreage is roughly 24.66 acres based on current plat (97 lots) . This equates to approximately 25, 1-acre lots under current RR1 zoning . Propose 97 lots or 57% out of total number of lots - 170 proposed for entire new development .Average lot size for this sub area = .25 acres or 4 lots per acre Focus on Southern Subsection of Proposed Development -Summary Summarized breakdown includes; SIZEof I..~TS #of Lacs %af Teal ~,a Gom'r~s: 1/5Acne Lacs (rrir~imrr siaeallvwec~ 3A 41% includes lat sines of .18 - .22 acne 1/4~Cne Lacs 37 3$D/° includes lat sixes of .2;i - .27 ac~~e 1/3~cne Lacs 15 15P/° includes lat sines of .28 - .28 acne 1/2~Cne Lacs 6 8% includes lat sines of .3B - .56acne Trials: 97 100% Total lots proposed Estimated Financial Implications under Current Proposal* Gross Develop er Revenue Estimate -Current RR1 Zonin Market Value Developer Value (85%) # RR1 Lots Developer Gross Revenue $150,000 $127,500 25 $3,187,500 Property Tax Revenue Estimates -Current RR1 Zoning Av .House $$ Av .Taxes/ ear # RR1 Lots Est. Annual Propert Taxes $600,000 $8,000 25 $200,000 Gross Develop er Revenue Estimate -C urrent Rez oning & Development Market Value Developer Value (85%) # Lots Developer Gross Revenue $85,000 $68,000 39 $2,817,750 $94,000 $79,900.00 37 $2,956,300 $99,000 $84,150.00 15 $1,262,250 $110,000 $93,500.00 6 $561,000 Totals: 97 $7,597,300 Property Tax R evenue Estimates -Current RR1 Zoning Avg. House $$ Avg. Taxes/year # Lots Est. Annual Property Taxes $258,330 $4,478 39 $174,642 $324,300 $5,748 37 $212,676 $486,770 $8,554 15 $128,310 $600,000 $10,636 6 $63,816 Totals: 97 $579,444 Est. RR1 ~ Revenue ~ Est. RS5 Revenue * Uses comparable current lot and housing data from CCE, Galway Hills and Cardinal Crossing Estimated Net Increase in Gross Revenue Under Current Proposal* Gross Revenue Estimates: Proposed Rezoning vs. Current Rezoning Proposed Rezoning $7,597,300 Current Rezoning $3,187,500 Developer Est. Revenue Increase Due to Rezoning & Development $4,409,800 Proposed Rezoning $579,444 Current Rezoning $200,000 Tax Est. Revenue Increase Due to Rezoning & Development $379, 444 ~\ Est. Net Revenue Increase ~~ Alternative Concept Taking "Balanced Approach" into Consideration ~,4 Multi-family S Attached (Patio} 44 Single Family 7G Total Horner f: Trail ~~. 25 .~ 1~ ~' L,ot.~ Country Club Estates Southwest Area Concept Plan \~ '~~~~ ~~~ outlot 'G' q~ ~~~~ ~ .,x ~ ~~ .,~-- ~ A..~ ~` ~ ~ ~~~. ~uiloi `~' - 3 Acres Attached (Patin) Hnmes 50 acre lot ~ ~ ~ .SU acre lot u ~:.~ ~ J .~ 93 O .r^ ~r ~~ ~~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ Center-line adjusted north as needed ROHRET ROAD ~r~~ ~`_~, ~~ jn~ f 1 ~ All trees retained ~~~~ ~ £~ ~, ~ J __ - 24.66 "buildable" acres Trail ~~ x~ protected - 1UU' butter maintained ~ ,~ Critical slope & sensitive areas Recommendations: . Take a collaborative approach to "strike a balance" between all interested parties . Redesign a plat that reflects this "balance" for the proposed development . If Developer needs to move forward quickly, currently only approve phases north of the wetlands (without Lake Shore Drive construction) . Develop the southern subsection at a time when Rohret Road is improved and the Slothower issue is resolved Ariel View of proposed rezoning and Development ~ ~ ~~! ~ _- ~ _ ~ M~ r ~4 ~ y `~ ~, 7w ,_ _ ~ ~~` ` a W . ~~ ~ r, d4 ~ r ~ ~a ~~ r` - w~ r. 9 i x ~ ~ ~ m '~ ~ ~ E ~t , ~, ~~: ~~ ;, ~y~ '+~ °,-~ ~R ~, ~~ ~~ ,~ ~ r ~ w . ,;~ '~ ~ L , ~ ~~ '~ ~ ~ ~, .~,~ ~;, ;;~ ~~ -~. ~ .i `~ m, ~' a * ~: i~ ~` ,. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~, ~~ ,~ , `. ~o ~j Greetings, We are writing one more time to express our concern for zoning changes which are being discussed on behalf of the S&J development corporation along Rohret Rd. At the last City Council meeting a plan was presented which essentially does nothing to address community wide concerns and only gives the developer what he wants. We understand that city staff and representatives are working very hard on this issue and really appreciate their efforts but are they being swayed into shortsightedness by pressures from the developer/other to forget the very valid issues brought forward by the neighbors? The "Outlot D"plan simply divides the land to give the developer the right to start developing. Where is the thought behind those changes, which is obviously no better and likely worse than the plan before it? Most all of the neighbors who have signed the petition against this development plan have clearly stated that we would welcome a well planned, well thought out development, which would integrate well into the neighborhood, be an asset to the community, address the existing community's needs, meet the city's stated goals for the area as called out in the SW Comprehensive Plan, protect the trees on the south side of Rohret Rd. and meet the city's goals for diverse, affordable housing. Yet, despite an initial interest in providing a balance between the developer's needs and the needs of the neighbors, SW community and the city, it appears as if the changes to the original plan simply divide the parcel, and interestingly also divide the opposition, to give the developer what he has asked for without compromise. Too much of the current and past plans seem to serve the developer's needs for expanding a "country club" subdivision around the private recreation complex and developer's home. It also provides an increased population of wealthier individuals to adequately support this club. The new plan still adversely impacts current residents and fails to meet city goals for new development in any meaningful way. So we ask again; Isn't it the responsibility of the City Council to provide balance in their direction? If so, where is the balance in this plan; where does it provide a balance between the needs of those who have invested their lives, time and money in living in this rural area with the needs of the developer or the city? Rohret Rd Closest to our hearts is the issue with Rohret Rd. The developer says `well... he looses quite a long stretch of 17 feet if the center line of the road is moved north'. Excuse us, but we and our neighbors will loose quite a long stretch of 17 feet if the centerline of the road is not moved north, except that, we all have been paying taxes on that land for many years and we have cared for it and loved it and cared for the trees that will be destroyed by this change. And, in addition, we won't make a profit like the developer, but instead we will loose part of our souls and receive nothing for it. No amount of money from thy.,, city will replace the old growth trees and the heart with which the Rohret Rd nei~bors have invested in their land and homes. ~~:=~ ~^" 1',~ ~ ~ m ~,. r~ o ?~ ~~ ~ Q ~. It is a know fact that 965 will some day be extended and that Rohret Rd will likely be a feeder to that highway. That means it is time to plan to do Rohret Rd correctly so that it can support the future needs as a feeder road. It is time to plan for the 100 ft right of way and move the centerline north so that it does not impact county residents. The planners would say 88 foot right-of--way plan for Rohret Rd. will be ok; with the city engineer saying they only have to take out some trees and disturb some others. They would also say that no sidewalks are needed on the south side of the road -but only until the land is annexed. We know that we personally do not want to be annexed but what about the land west of the current residents. If it is annexed, sidewalks will be required in front of existing homes, including ours. The city won't let us say no to annexation. We think that would occur only about as fast as they give county residents the right to vote in city elections. The county residents are without a vote, without representation and with this plan without their trees, their hearts and their souls. Affordable Housing Nowhere in the new plan does it address the issues which many of us have requested be addressed. The newest variation in the plan not only does not integrate affordable housing with more affluent homes; it no longer even suggests affordable housing anywhere in the area. At least the original plan had a nominal adherence to the city's requirements regarding integrating mixed income housing to the end goal of diversity and cohesive neighborhood. Does this mean that any future affordable housing will be segregated to "Outlot D"? The developer didn't want to put any affordable housing near his property because it would lower his property values. Segregating affordable housing to "Outlot D" will reduce our and our neighbor's property values. Green Space, Trails, Parks Where the original plan had green space, parks and trails for only the most affluent home owners on the north side of the plat, the new plan suggests that a 3 acre park which "may" be provided some time in the future, but in 5 years a new city counsel will have been elected and none of the promises made now will be remembered. In a few years, there will be a new plan for "Outlot D" and it will likely not include green space, trails or other amenities that the northern development will have integrated within it. Furthermore, if the space in "Outlot B" is `traded' for the park space in "Outlot D" the developer will get his part of the trade immediately. Allowing the "Outlot D" to be platted at a later time could easily foster a situation where "Outlot D" is platted with the green space conveniently left off the "Outlot D"parcel. The developer will have gained an immediate additional profit margin but never have to complete the proffered trade whereby the community park will be lost. That seems like a trade favoring the developer and no one else. The developer will have out maneuvered the representatives of the other tax payers in this community. Forgive us calling a spade a spade; we have just see too many decisions made against the least powerful and decisions being made to support policy over people. .., C7 Density ` ' `r~~' '-'°'"~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ Density is an interesting aspect of this plan. Several years ago the city planners told developers that their plans, as drawn, were too dense, yet now those same planners are not saying that this development plan is too dense despite the fact that the current plan has many more units in it than the plan from years ago. Once "Outlot D" is developed the full parcel will be even denser. The land has not grown in acreage/size, so what makes this year's plan, "not too dense" when the plan from years ago was "too dense"? Who gets to decide what is too dense? What are the criteria for determining density and the subjective value of "too dense"? Available services? The tax payer's representatives? The developer? Those who dwell adjacent to the density? We would say the parcel is "too dense!" our neighbors and fellow tax payers all would say and have said "too dense!" Even available services say "too dense." The new plan also has nothing in it which might address the concerns of the neighbors regarding the increased density and how it will affect the existing infrastructure; nothing that addresses the additional traffic problems for existing residents or any of the already far too stretched services such as water, sewer, and fire and emergency rescue response time. Wetlands It was officially stated in at least 2 public meetings that the wetlands on the area being discussed for development didn't matter much because they were not pristine and housed no endanger species. It maybe true that the wetlands are not pristine but they are wetlands, and they play a vital role in the natural environment. Someone in an official capacity also said in response to excessive water runoff during a storm that the excessive run off was a result of that water running across fields and fields didn't absorb water very well. What? Anyone who admires or studies the natural environment and spends even a few moments with thought and critical analysis could easily intuit that adding cement and physical structures such as housing, garages and roads reduces the area where water can be absorbed into soil and drain away. More cement and housing only means more water will flow because it was unable to percolate down through the covered soil. The water will be forced to flow in a wider path outside its current flow pattern. Reducing the ~ wetlands buffer, placing a road in the natural stream flow, and increasing the density off,„ structures can only mean that more basements will be wetter. It means that som~w `; :~ ~ neighbors will see even larger flows running through their yards. It means that e~is#ing-- residents see an increased chance of septic tank problems. A developer should Vvo~Ic wi~, c an nature not against it. This summer's floods showed all of us on a grand scale wh~,tr ~ ~'"' happen when humans work against nature. ~ © o Effective Transitions ~' o~ There is no transition between existing land uses and proposed development. A blind frog could see that transition between new and existing development does not exist, except for the southern most neighbors -but only until "Outlot D" is developed. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee for the residents on Rohret Rd. that the developer will not put in poorly designed, poorly laid out, incompatible, and intrusive housing in the "Outlot D" area immediately across from existing homes with horses, pastures, hayfields, and orchards with lots between three to six acres each. Based on the lack of imagination displayed in the plans seen to date, there is a strong guarantee that the "Outlot D" will be as ugly a plan as the first sections and many of us may have the added bonus of looking at blight forever. Part of a suitable transition and diversity of housing will involve the rest of the subdivision in sections 3 through 6. Process This zoning change request has been froth with process that leaves the existing neighbors and neighborhood with a mouth full of anger and much frustration. First we have a "good neighbor meeting" that effectively was a means for the builder to use the process to announce his plans and mark a check in a box on his check list to represent himself as open minded. Many untrue statements regarding the plans were made at the `meet-the- developer's-representatives-and-see-his-completed-plans open house', but no real meeting occurred. This is a travesty to the process and to the name "good neighbor" as well. Then we had a series of P&Z meetings where the city planners were so invested in going forward that they spoon fed partial information, sound bytes that supported the developer's views, but not the full facts to ensure that the P&Z commission would more readily vote for the plan. Occasionally real concerns by neighbors were derided; their positions and thoughts nullified by obfuscation and distortion. Many important facts supporting the opposite view points were left out, presented partially or otherwise distorted during that process. And while they were being spoon fed only the facts that the city staff wanted them to hear, the P&Z commission many times during their meetings stated or implied that they were relying upon their "paid professionals" (city planning staff) to provide impartial and valid information. The P&Z process ended with virtually every P&Z commission member stating, for the record, that they didn't really like the plan but they were going to vote for it anyway. The plan and the process left only an unsettled feeling for most everyone. Why would the P&Z staff vote for something that doesn't do what they stated that they want done with the parcel? Has it become too difficult to vote for the people and much easier to just go along the path of least resistance? Then along came the City Counsel process. You've listened. For the first time we had ,~ government representatives hearing the neighbors. Thank you for that. Now the seems to be this haste to get the builder building and a need to move on from this subj et=1 ~~ '- ~~~~ '°'~ without really addressing some of the difficult issues. ~~~ -° ~ ~~~t~, ~,, ~~.... ~ t 1~ Recommendations '_ r`~mi The city needs to vote down both variations of plans for this parcel. The parcel ids tom be addressed as one parcel in a way that meets the stated goals with a development plat ~ that is laid out in a way that supports the comprehensive plan, the city goals for integrate and equitable housing. The water flow issues and effective transition need to be addressed as well. Most importantly, the city needs to stipulate now that the centerline of the road will be moved north to support Rohret Rd as an effective link to the 965 highway and so that the issue does not sit for a few years and then be forgotten. Send the developer back to create a new plat approach that considers everyone's needs not just his biased financial efficacy. Insist the developer have a real good neighbor meeting, approached with a truly open mind and readiness to hear ideas; not just a pulpit to scare neighbors into accepting his plans, but listening and working collaboratively to achieve a well thought out development with integrated compromises. We don't mind if not all our ideas are incorporated, but this developer has done an excellent job of looking after his own interests and his own neighborhood at the expense of the rest of the development, neighborhood, and community. Good development begins with listening to the neighbors and investing time, and truly addressing issues rather than covering them up. Let's help this developer learn a good development process. We can do our part. Will you do yours and vote down this inflexibly ill-prepared plan so that we might have a chance at a true community? The developer's statement that if you do not approve his plan immediately then you are affecting jobs is his effort to manipulate. Think before you act and don't be moved by scare tactics. Instead, do what is best for the people you serve. At a minimum, this plan should not go forward without ^ A stipulation that the Rohret Rd Centerline will be moved north by approximately 17 to support the 100 foot right of way with no changes to the south side of the roadway ^ A stipulation that "Outlot D" will have a minimum of 3 acres of green space ^ The original 100 ft of wetlands buffer being restored and maintained ^ More affordable homes, condos or zero lot lines integrated into the sections 3-6 of the full plat. ^ A stipulation that the developer will shift Lakeshore drive roadway out of the main water flow path Thank you for your service and doing what is best for the people. Judy, Dave, Rebekah, Rai Tokuhisa, Adam, Amanda and Jason Rohrer ,M.~ ...., 0 ~,.~ _~ O ~,,. ~;~ ~ o~ Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr From: Nancy Hitchon [nhitchon@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:01 AM To: Council Subject: Fwd: wet land reduction ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nancy Hitchon <nhitchon c~gmail.com> Date: Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:57 AM Subject: wet land reduction To: rocs-wilb...trrntu~:iowa-c_ty.o_rg Mr. Wilburn, My name is Nancy Hitchon, I live at 29 Tucson place neighbor to Sandler's and Jewells. I was out of town when you kindly met with the neighborhood regarding Country Club development. We are the "eyes" of the area and see we have a reoccurring water issue with the existing wet land area. The term poor quality wet land has been used many times without reassuring us about what we see as a real problem. I don't believe the issue has completely or adequately been address. How long can water stand and pool and be considered acceptable? I think a formal letter from the person who can knowledgeably judge this issue should be shared before any plans to reduce wet lands near already developed homes. If written information from an expert not hear say can be produced it could go along way in helping with our concerns. Thank you for your time and consideration. Nancy Hitchon 4/3/2009 'll ~`" ~- ~- - ~: x_ r~ E i e;~.,~~ - ~~ 4I a ~- --~_~~ -- ,N 4 ;; ~ ~' ~ , f i :e: i "v~ ' C jl~~~ I~ ~yY~~~ ~'+~f` ~t ~, _I, `i .i ,,:. r' r-- -~~_c~ ti ~r i . -,~ ,~:`' ,fi - r _ _ ~.- :-' ~ !, ~ ~ I 3~~ ~ ~ ~- ' ! '~ ~~ I ~ ~"~ ~ _,.~ ~- ,fir ~~ '~ :~- ~~ jr -~ --< .. ~~ ~~„~ _ - .. _~~ _~ ~~ ~. f~ ~~, _~ . +~; n ~~. ~ ham; ~ r ~ .1r' ~. _ _ ~Qa d• . I LI--I - _ - '~' __ ±. -~~.~_ i is ~ { 3i. a ~ q ~. ~. `~~~.,; c~ .~ ~_ ~~. S~'~'~ ~,[~~.~.'~'~0~: 4'748 42~}th Sheet E REZ~9-0000 f ~, ~,, yyr,~,r , - ,. ~-~ r ~ - ~ ~f ;, :- .- I~ r1 ~PDrFiS12 J --rxm-..~xi ~~ ~'' ~;, r= OPDIRSI2 1 ~~ i - S.iT~ LC)C:A.~'~~1~: 4745 4~Ot~~ Street L ID-I • : /.' '+~ -~~' J... : . ., ~,', ~'/ `~PV~' ~. I~~ ,t i }.~~ . ~ ,~ ~~ , ~-~:~ -- ~, ~~~ Publish 3/27 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m., on the 6th day of April, 2009, in City Hall, Emma Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: Ordinance amending Title 3, Entitled "City Finances, Taxation and Fees," Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines and Penalties," Article 5, entitled "Solid Waste Disposal," of the City Code to increase solid waste charges. Copies of the proposed ordinance are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR THE 2009 WATER MAIN DIRECTIONAL BORING PROJECT IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS: Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the construction of the 2009 Water Main Directional Boring Project in said city at 7:00 p.m. on the 6th day of April, 2009, said meeting to be held in the Emma J. Harvat Hall in the City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street in said city, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in the City Hall in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested persons. Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of making objections to and comments concerning said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of making said improvement. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by law. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK to NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR THE 2009 PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT FOR WATER MAIN PROJECT IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS: Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the construction of the 2009 Pavement Replacement for Water Main Project in said city at 7:00 p.m. on the 6th day of April, 2009, said meeting to be held in the Emma J. Harvat Hall in the City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street in said city, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in the City Hall in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested persons. Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of making objections to and comments concerning said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of making said improvement. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by I aw. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR THE BURLINGTON STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE RENOVATION PROJECT IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS: Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the construction of the Burlington Street Pedestrian Bridge Renovation Project in said City at 7:00 p.m. on the 6th day of April, 2009, said meeting to be held in the Emma J. Harvat Hall in City Hall in said City, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in City Hall in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested persons. Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of making objections to and comments concerning said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of making said improvement. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided bylaw. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK Pweng/nph/Burl i ngton ped.doc