Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-16 AgendaCity Clerk's office at 356-5043. Subject to change as finalized by the City Clerk. For a final official copy, contact the AGENDA IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1997 - 3:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ITEM NO. I ITEM NO. 2 CALL TO ORDER. ROLL CALL. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS OF THE U.S.A. CORP., LODGE NO. 590 AND TO DISPOSE OF PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID AGREEMENT, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 21, 1997. Comment: In order to facilitate development of the property commonly known as the Peninsula and the construction of the new Iowa City Wa- ter Supply and Treatment Facility Improvements the City must have ac- cess to the Peninsula by way of Foster Road extended and must estab- lish its right-of-way for Foster Road extended. Foster Road extended runs through the Elks Club golf course and improvements to the road planned by the City will interfere with the Elks Club golf course and re- quires the Elks Club to construct two additional golf holes to replace those which will be lost by the improvements to Foster Road extended planned by the City. The City and the Elks Club have negotiated an agreement which will facilitate the City's development of the Peninsula and the construction of the Iowa City Water Supply and Treatment Facil- ity Improvements as well as allow the Elks Club to continue to operate a golf course. The agreement provides for the future granting of a perma- nent easement by the City to the Elks Club on City-owned property on the Peninsula to be used by the Elks Club for the two additional golf holes. In addition, the agreement provides for the alignment of Foster Road extended and requires the City to abandon all rights it has in the existing unimproved roadway that will not be used for the fixed align- ment of Foster Road extended. Action: //2 Page 1 ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS OF THE U.S.A., CORP., LODGE NO. 590 AND TO DISPOSE OF PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID AGREEMENT, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 21, 1997. Nov/ I'm going to do an abbreviated comment. (read comment) Thornberry/ Move to consider. Nov/ Moved by Thornberry. Lehman/ Seconded. Nov/ Seconded by Lehman. Discussion. Kubby/ I have some questions about some language things and I don't really want to wait until after the public hearing in case they need to be talked about with the Elks. One of them is on the resolution that we are actually voting on today. It's in the "whereas" so I don't know how important they are but since we are voting on the "whereas" I guess I want to say it, I'm looking on the first page of the resolution, the second "whereas" where it says "Whereas Foster Road extended runs through the Elks Club Golf Course" and I object to that language. And I don't know if it would change the content to just strike out "runs through the Elks Club Golf Course and" to just say "Whereas Foster Road extended improvements to the road planned by the City will interfere with the Golf Course" and striking that one section cause I don't want us voting on something that implies that we went through someone's golf course. I have a problem. Norton/ I raised the same question with Eleanor just a minute ago on the "whereas" and exactly the same question because I feel that it implies we were the one that was intruding and actually the Elks had an intrusion into a known right of way of some kind. Thornberry/ Does the road run through the Elks Golf Course? Norton/ Does the Gold Course run through the road? Thornberry/ I'm just saying the road meanders through. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 16, 1997. F0101697 #2 Page 2 Kubby/ I'm suggesting some language that doesn't change the meaning or the resolution that makes two of us more comfortable. Norton/ Right. Lehman/ The thing I think, if I hear what you're saying, is sounds like our road runs through on their property. Kubby/ Yea, and I don't want to vote on something that has that implication. Lehman/ Which we do not believe to be the case. Kubby/ Right. Norton/ May in part. Lehman/ We believe it is our road. Kubby/ Before we vote... Thornberry/ Well, Kubby/ Does my language suggestion change the meaning of the resolution for any .... ? Dilkes/ No, I don't think so. The only problem is it's also in the agreement so we'd have to get that changed. I mean we'd have to talk to the Elks about agreeing to that. Kubby/ May be a few things that we need to talk to them about. Dean would you object to taking that language out when it does not change the meaning? Thornberry/ No, not when it doesn't change the... Norton/ Not going to change the meaning that's for sure. Kubby/ I would be deleting the phase "runs through the Elks Club Golf Course and" that would be deleted. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 16, 1997. F0101697 Page 3 Dilkes/ I think the intent is not necessary that it runs on their property it's just that a road runs through a development, a road runs through .... Thornberry/ Yea, the river runs through it. Dilkes/ But I don't see any harm in deleting it if that's not a problem for them. Thornberry/ It's a point of where is it? Norton/ Understand. Lehman/ Norton/ them... Nov/ Well, I wouldn't take out "and". I would say "Foster Road extended and improvements to the road". Kubby/ Okay. Lehman/That's fine. Kubby/ Fine. Nov/ Yea. I have no problem. Make it a formal motion. Kubby/ I move that we delete the phase from the second "whereas" to (read) "runs through the Elks Club Golf Course". Lehman/ Second. Nov/ Moved by Kubby, seconded by Lehman, that we delete that phase. there any further discussion? All in favor please say "aye". All ayes, Now we are going to vote on this resolution as amended. Kubby/ Well I have a couple... Norton/ I have one more.., But .... ithink.. I understand but there's two sides to this coin and we want both of is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 16, 1997. F0101697 #2 Page 4 Kubby/ Go ahead. Norton/ All right, go ahead... Kubby/ My other ones are questions about the agreement. Some of the language. I'm looking on page one under 1, Permanent Easement for Golf Course. Where it says "The City will grant, sell and convey" IS sell there a legal term because there isn't money changing hands? Dilkes/ That's not a problem it's just a...no, I mean you can sell without Kubby/ Just a legal phase? Dilkes/ Yea, just a legal. Thornberry/ You can sell without money. Lehman/ Grant, sell or convey the easement. It doesn't say the property. Dilkes/ You can sell for consideration that's not money. Lehman/ Yea. Dilkes/ And so Kubby/ You answered my question. Okay. Then it says "the right to develop a minimum of two golf holes" which means that they might develop or implies that there might be development of more than two golf holes on that? Thornberry/ No less than. Nov/ Well, the implication is Kubby/ The right to develop a minimum. Thornberry/ What I mean is you could say no fewer than or you could say two golf holes. Norton/ ...minimum. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 16, 1997. F0101697 #2 Page 5 Kubby/ Most of the other language in the agreement says specifically two golf holes and here it says develop a minimum of and so I'm just wondering why there is Thornberry/ They want two. Kubby/ language. If that makes a difference? Dilkes/ Their intent is certainly to do two golf holes. I could talk to them about removing that although if they want to put three, I mean they are not going to get anymore land. If they want to put three golf holes. Lehman/ If they want to work a third one in let them do it. Norton/ Redesign that course? Kubby/ Although part of our discussion too have to do with how many greens are on there. That means how more chemical use in the area that's closer down and what we've always talked about has been two and so all of a sudden I see a minimum of two in one area and two everywhere else and I just have a question, I think it is a legitimate ... Thornberry/ Wasn't that in the agreement? Dilkes/ We have to approve their construction plans which are going to provide for two golf holes but I can talk to them about removing that word. Thornberry/ Take the whole thing back to the Elks. We vote on it. Norton/ I have a question while we coming along on this, page two at the top, I don't understand the last part of that paragraph. Dilkes/ I'm sorry. Just a minute. Can we get a consensus on this "minimum" is that something that people want to take out? Lehman/ I don't have any problem with it. Nov/ Because if they have fewer than nine holes we get the property back. Thornberry/ We're conveying this property for golf. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 16, 1997. F0101697 #2 Page 6 Nov/ Yes but for a minimum nine hole golf course. If they choice to operate an eight hole course or a seven hole golf course they may not do that according to this agreement. Thornberry/ Or a ten hole golf course. Kubby/ Do people do that? Thornberry/ No. Lehman/ No. Kubby/ I mean it's nine or eighteen right? Nov/ Right, but the fact is that we require them to operate at least nine. Kubby/ Don't be innovative. Lehman/ That would be innovative, Thornberry/ Yea. Norton/ But I can imagine there must be a case of which they redesign other parts of the course and decide they need three in this area rather than .. Lehman/ They'd have to run it through us anyway. Thornberry/ But they'd still have no more land/ Norton/ That's right no more land. Thornberry/ So. Norton/ I guess the minimum doesn't hurt. Thornberry/ Yea, that's fine. Nov/ Anything else Karen? Kubby/ I think but Dee had one he started. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 16, 1997. FO 101697 //2 Page 7 Norton/ I started one. It's a matter of clarification. I don't understand the last sentence in the first paragraph on page two of the agreement. Kubby/ About the condemnation? Norton/ Yea. I just don't know what it means. "In the event all or any part of the easement area is taken by condemnation"? Dilkes/ That means that if we would condemn that property it wouldn't be considered a termination that would require them to give the property back. In other words we can't have it both ways, we go in condemn Lehman/ Protecting their property rights. Dilkes/ They have an interest in that land and if we decide to take it then we'll have to compensate them for it. Kubby/ If we decide we need that land for a greater public purpose than what we have agreed to already with the permanent easement. Lehman/ If we sucked them into something we can't do it. Dilkes/ That would be pretty handy if we could go in and condemn that and that meant they had to give it up. Thornberry/ Anything else Dee? Norton/ Not mine. Kubby/ I have a couple other things. I'm looking on page three under number 7 a and b and I really am happy that the chemical use covenant is consistent from both directions, from the City direction and then any private development that we sell our property too as well as the Elks use of chemicals but in terms of the monitoring wells it says the City has the right to install monitoring wells near the Elks Golf Course but them in section b if we sell any area for private development that it will install monitoring wells. It doesn't give us the right but it says that we will do it, Lehman/ This is south and east and this is north. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 16, 1997. FO 101697 #2 Page 8 Kubby/ Right, I'm just asking why is it not consistent that in one case we will do it and in another we have the right to do it? Dilkes/ Well, I think it's because in a portion of it it's the right to install those wells on their land or on Kubby/ On the easement? Dilkes/ In the easement area. Kubby/ huh, ah. Dilkes/ And we agreeing that we will I mean I don't see that it does us any harm. Maybe I'm not following. Kubby/ I'm just asking why everything else is pretty consistent and a two way street and this is not consistent, That in one area on the easement we have the right to install the monitoring wells but then if we sell the land to private entity for private development we will install the monitoring wells. It obligates us. Norton/ Maybe that's what we mean. Dilkes/ Then it later provides that if Kubby/ Just don't understand the difference? Dilkes/ But it does later provide that if, the intent of this is that we have to monitor in both places on either place essentially. Lehman/ What it really says is that we will require the people who purchase the property that we currently own to maintain the same standards of applying fertilizers or whatever and we will test to see to it they do. Dilkes/ Right because the Elks want to know that if tell them to quit applying chemicals we have good basis to believe the chemicals come from them and if you look at the last sentence of b it says "if we can discontinue monitoring on the south and east boundaries then we can discontinue monitoring on the north" too so I think that evens it up, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 16, 1997. F0101697 #2 Page 9 Kubby/ I don't really understand why it's permissive and mandated in the different cases but no one else has a problem with it. Lehman/ This one I think is to protect the Elks. Nov/ I think it's really saying that if we monitor the wells, use monitoring wells for the Elks use of chemicals we will use monitoring wells for the other people's use of chemicals. It's not quite stated as an if clause but I think it's the same. Dilkes/ I think it also if we sell that land we're going to have to take affirmative I mean we're going to have to reserve the right to install those monitoring wells. It's saying we will reserve that right. I mean we can not sell that land. We don't have to monitor on the easement area. And we don't have to monitor on the other area, Lehman/ But it sells Dilkes/ But if we sell that land we will reserve our right to monitor. I mean we will monitor. Kubby/ I don't have any...l'm just saying why not have for the private development to say, the private non-Elks development, to say that we will monitor. To say that we will monitor both. Dilkes/ We're not saying that we will monitor both. We're saying that we will monitor both if we monitor. We may not monitor either. I think one of the things that Chuck has told me is that it's possible that down the road we will decide that monitoring of either part is not necessary. Kubby/ Okay. Dilkes/ So, I don't see it as a problem. But if Kubby/ No, it's apparent no one else sees it as a problem. Norton/ I'm sure it's related to the logic of making sure what you measure down below isn't coming from up above. Lehman/ That's exactly right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 16, 1997. FO 101697 //2 Page 1 0 Dilkes/ And I think that this language accomplishes that. Kubby/ Okay. Nov/ Yea. Kubby/ I think the last question that I have is in terms of suspension of chemical use by the Elks Club, //8. That it doesn't really allow us that in case there are huge amounts of rain in any one section of a year or a major flood would the language here allow us to negotiate with them to reduce or cease for a short period of time chemical use because of the kinds of rains or amounts of rain or because of flooding? Dilkes/ I think there's another provision in here and I'll have to find it but where it refers to the chemical application schedule. Kubby/ Says that we can change the schedule agreeable by both parties? Dilkes/ I think so. I mean I can't find it. Kubby/ That's where the flood and big rain discussion would come in. Dilkes/ We can allows negotiate further with them. Kubby/ Would have to be agreeable to it. I mean the only way we can say "no" is if it is a result of monitoring activities is how I read//8. That means we have to negotiate about it if there are huge amounts of rain scheduled for a short period of time or flooding. It doesn't mean we can say hold off for three days because of the weather. Dilkes/ I don't know. I don't think this allows us to do that. Thornberry/ Well in a practical purpose they wouldn't want to spend the money to do that if it was going to run off. Kubby/ Well. Dilkes/ I think you're right I don't think the agreement provides for that. Kubby/ Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 16, 1997. FO 101697 #2 Page 1 1 Thornberry/ I don't know of a contract that you can provide for every single thing that might possibly happen. Norton/ Well, you mean...worth looking carefully because we have CZA's and others where the language will grab you. Nov/ Any further discussion? Roll call. Thornberry/ As amended. Nov/ As amended we did one amendment. Dilkes/ Lehman (all ayes) Nov/ Okay we have approved this resolution on a 5/0 vote. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 16, 1997. F0101697 City Council Agenda October 16, 1997 page 2 ITEM NO. 3 CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ~ OCTOBER 21, 1997, ON THE WINTER 1997/1998 DEER MANAGE- MENT PLAN. Comment: This item sets a public hearing on the Resolution approving the Deer Management Plan. The Iowa City/Coralville Deer Management Committee completed its recommendation for the Winter 1997/1998 Iowa City Deer Management Plan. The Plan includes educating the pub- lic on living with deer and killing deer in districts of Iowa City where the herd population is high. Sharpshooting and trap and kill are recom- mended methods of lethal reduction. If passed, the Plan will be for- warded to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for ap- proval. After receiving approval from the DNR, the Plan will be adopted as an ordinance. ITEM NO. 4 CONSIDER A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING. #3 Page 1 ITEM NO. 3 CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 21, 1997, ON THE WINTER 1997/1998 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Lehman/ Move we set pubic hearing. Thornberry/ Second. Nov/ Moved by Lehman, seconded by Thornberry, that we set a public hearing. Any discussion? Thornberry/ I listened to the group, the deer group, they went into this in detail. Lehman/ They worked hard. Thornberry/ They worked very diligently and in great detail and did a super job and had input from everybody on the committee. Lisa did a good job. Nov/ Okay. I would like to add there is a huge stack of papers available at the City Clerk's office for those of us that feel like reading the entire documentation that this committee had. Otherwise there will be a short, or how should I say, a shorter memo in the packet. Thornberry/ But they looked at every thing. Every possibility. Lehman/ Twice. Thornberry/ And came to the conclusion that this is the way to go. Even though the DNR does not specifically approve this at this time I think they're, the DNR, is going to be re-looking at this since Cedar Rapids had the same problems and Kubby/ Well they'll have to look at it if Council approves it. Thornberry/ Yea. My question I guess is could we do it without DNR approval on public property? Lehman/ Probably not. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 16, 1997. F0101697 #3 Page 2 Dilkes/ No, because I think the basis on which we need approval is that the deer are theirs. Thornberry/ Okay, could we do it on private property without DNR approval? Dilkes/ I would say no. Lehman/ Probably not. Thornberry/ Really? Lehman/ Owners probably could but I don't think we could. A farmer can shoot deer on his own land. Kubby/ But not in the City limits. Thornberry/ If we re-did a City ordinance then individuals could on private property or could or would the deer elimination people be able do to it? Lehman/ Dean I think when we have this hearing we're going to talk about that because I think that there's got to be a way that this can be implemented in less time than has been indicated that it would take. I just think there's got to be a way. Nov/ Well, we'll see about that. In the mean time all we're doing is setting a public hearing. Lehman/ Setting a public hearing. Nov/ And this is a motion. All in favor please say "aye" . (All ayes) Motion carried. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 16, 1997. F0101697