Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-05 Transcription#2 Page 1 ITEM 2 PROCLAMATIONS b. Project GREEN Volunteer Month - April 2005 Lehman: (reads proclamation) Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is Project GREEN Steering Committee members Anne Hesse and A. K. Trau. (applause) Hesse: Thank you, Mayor Lehman and members of the Council, for acknowledging more than 300 Project GREEN volunteers, who continue their efforts to landscape and beautify Iowa City's public green spaces. When Project GREEN co-founder, Nancy Siberling, presented her annual report to the City Council on our 10!h anniversary, that was in 1978, she said, "Project GREEN is, of course, just an idea," but it is an idea that has received increasing support from people who really want their community to be more attractive, and a pleasant place to live. Furthermore, they will work tirelessly, individually and collectively, to that end. Another co- founder, Gretchen Harshbarger, established Project GREEN's vision for landscaping public places in Iowa City when she said, "I consider the whole city an arboretum." As you drive around Iowa City during this month of April, please notice the signs designating our five on-going major landscape projects. The six-block long median landscapes of Iowa Avenue; Melrose Avenue medians from Emerald Street to Deer Creek Road; Highway 6 By-pass, the two and a half mile entryway in southeast Iowa City, from Lakeside Drive to Gilbert Street; North Dubuque Street entryway, from 1-80 to Meadowridge Road; and lastly, the Phase I of the Park Road improvement project, which is on the east end of the bridge. And by all means, as you contemplate spring, please come to the fair, May 7th, 9:00 to ! ! :30 in the morning at Carver Hawkeye Arena. Thank you very much. Lehman: Thank you. Champion: Anne, you said there were 400 volunteers? Do you know how many there were the first year? Hesse: There are between 300 and 400 now. The first year there probably was a handful of people that manned table in the Recreation Center and we sold a very small amount of plant materials, and we were home before noon. (laughter) Champion: That's terrific! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. 4/2 Page 2 ITEM 2 PROCLAMATIONS a. Public Access Television Week- April 10-16, 2005 Lehman: (reads proclamation) Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is PATV Executive Director, Josh Goding. (applause) Goding: I'd like to thank the Council for this proclamation. Also, I've passed out PATV's 2004 Annual Report to everyone. Maybe when you have a chance you can look through it. Two of our more interesting statistics from 2004 were PATV trained 87 new community producers to make TV in 2004. We also cablecast over 1,100 hours of new community-based programs. Want to take this chance to invite everybody out to a new workshop that we're going to be offering, urn, media literacy. This is going to be held April 21st, Thursday night at the Iowa City Public Library. It's directed towards parents, and it's called "Raising Media Savvy Kids." It's going to be taught by Liz Presiato, and this is a free class to the general public, and it's from 7:00 to 9:00, April 21st, Room B. Thanks. Lehman: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #2 Page 3 ITEM 2 PROCLAMATIONS c. National Crime Victims' Rights Week- April 10-16, 2005 Lehman: (reads proclamation) Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is Joey Matousek, Co-Chair of Iowa City Victim Advisory Board. (applause) Matousek: I'd like to thank the Council for this proclamation. I can't breathe (laughter). On behalf of the Probation Office, I'm a probation officer, and the Johnson County Victim Advisory Board, we thank you and we'd like to invite everybody to the opening ceremony for Crime Victim Rights Week, which will happen on April 11th, 5:30 P.M., at the Iowa City Public Library, Meeting Room A. It's going to be a panel discussion of where we have been, where we're at, and where we want to be. Panel members will be Marry Wise, mother of Julia Wise, who was murdered in 1985 here in Iowa City. The offender is serving a life sentence at Fort Madison. Captain Tom Widmer of the Iowa City Police Department; and Jay Patrick White of the Johnson County Attorney's Office. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #3 Page 4 ITEM 3 OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARD - Grant Wood Elementary Lehman: The folks tonight are from Grant Wood; if they'd come forward, please. This is probably one of the high points of our Council meetings. Some nights it is absolutely the high point. (laughter) Do you know Jan Lehman that works out there .... Jan Gringo Lehman? You do? Yeah, she's married to my son. She's pretty cool lady, isn't she? (laughter) Yeah, she's one of my absolute favorite people. This is a pretty important time for Council, and we've done this for, Steve, eight years? Ten years? And we recognize outstanding citizens and I think all of us on the Council learn a little something every time you tell us why you were nominated, and I think it's good for all of us to listen. I'm sure your parents are here, and I hope your grandparents are here, because they're all very, very proud of you. So, if you would give us your name and why you were nominated. Springer: My name is Tierra Springer. I'm in the 6th grade at Grant Wood, and my teacher is Mr. Glenn. I'm involved in Box Tops Committee, Conflict Managers, Jazzy Jumpers, and Student Council. I also started a committee called "Raise up for Life." The point of the committee is to raise money for the school district and overseas. Around Christmas, I put together a game, book, and toy drive for the less fortunate. I do these things because I think to myself 'what if ! was in that position?' I would want help. Thank you for your time and the opportunity. (applause) Hawkins: My name is India Hawkins. I am a 6th grade student of Mr. Glenn in Grant Wood. I work as a Conflict Manager who goes outside with younger kids during their recess to help solve conflicts. I am also a Captain on Safety Patrol. I help make school safe before and after school. Outside of school, I play the piano, bowl, take tennis lessons, and complete my homework in a timely manner. I babysit my brother every day after school. I plan to continue to work hard as a student and person to reach all my goals in life. (applause) Fink: My name is Leslie Fink. I'm a 6th grade in Mr. Glenn's class at Grant Wood Elementary. I am involved in Conflict Managers, where I solve conflicts between students. I am also a Captain in Safety Patrol. Part of my job is to raise and lower the flag, and put out the 'no parking' signs in the school parking lot. Outside of school, I have helped with a fundraiser for the Red Cross. I have also helped with the toy drive for families who cannot afford gifts. In addition, I have tutored students in various subjects. Thank you. (applause) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #3 Page 5 Lehman: We have a certificate for each of you; I'll read one of them (reads certificate). You guys, say 'hi' to Jan for me, okay? All right. Thank you. (laughter and applause) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #4 Page 6 ITEM 4 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED Champion: Move adoption. Bailey: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion; seconded by Bailey. Discussion? Vanderhoef: I would like Item F. 1. separated for separate consideration. Lehman: Okay. Elliott: I have a question about 4; I would either like to handle it separately, or I'd like to ask the question now. Lehman: You have a question about what? Champion: Number 4. Elliott: Number 4. Lehman: What...is it something you'd like done separately? Elliott: Uh, no, I just...my question is, it says that the hangar will be demolished, but it said that we have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to document the hangar. Is that anything that will delay or diminish our capacity to do anything? With the hangars? (several laughing and talking at once) Atkins: With respect to the hangar? Lehman: That's a good question. I don't...that really IS... Atkins: To my knowledge, the Airport Commission has followed all of the Historic Preservation procedures, everything they were required to do, in order to make the decision as to whether the hangar was going to remain or come down, and I understand a couple of years ago they ultimately made the decision that they were going to eventually take it down. As far as the memo of understanding, it's between the Commission and the folks at the State. Elliott: Okay, thanks. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. Page 7 Vanderhoefi and then, I had one thing. I called to Engineering today on Item D. 2. on the setting public hearing on the improvements to Grand Avenue and so forth, and I understand from them, I thought they were going to be here tonight but I'll try and phrase it the way they did - that the Byington curve, at the top of the hill... Atkins: Excuse me, Dee. There may be somebody in the hallway. Vanderhoefi Ah, there you are. Come on up, Ron. Atkins: Sorry, Ron. (laughter) Vanderhoef: The, just for public knowledge, what the scope of this is, and what is left to be done at a later date. Knoche: The scope of the project that we'll be setting public hearing for tonight does everything that was within the study that was done by the University, in Iowa City, but what was left out was the widening out of the Byington curve, and that would be a future project, if it's deemed necessary at that time. The reason why that was left out was the University is still in the planning part of what they're going to do with that side of campus, and so we didn't want to spend $400,000 now to find out that it wasn't necessary to do, if they want to change something in the future. Vanderhoef: Okay, that's good. Just so we know that that project may come back to us. Knoche: Yes. Vanderhoef: Thank you. Lehman: Roll call. Champion: Move F. 1. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Motion and a second for F. 1. Discussion? Vanderhoef: I would like to send this back to the staff to look at all of this. There's some possibilities of doing some 'no parking' for part of the time of the day, and parking for other times of the day, which is something that the Mayor brought up to me recently. Lehman: I think this is going to be brought up to all of us, immediately. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #4 Page 8 Vanderhoef: Fine. Kohen: Thank you. I am resident of 1302 George, and I thank Council for the opportunity. Lehman: You need to give us your name before you start. Kohen: It's A-m-n-o-n K-o-h-e-n. And we own a house there and are the residents of that house since 2002, and plan to stay there for a long time now. We have two kids, and they...no parking signs have been posted not too long ago, after there was a significant majority of the residents who wanted to change the parking situation, on this very short street. I mean, between Sunset and George. Some of those people that were involved in the change are no longer residents. They sold their houses or otherwise. They are no longer residents. The population has changed. I definitely recognize that. The situation is that most of the new residents are students that are renting houses or similarly temporary kind of residence, and they have not been there when there was free parking along that stretch, and what happened is that it's not really the residents who enjoy this parking because there are many other people interested in parking in this stretch because it's just next to University Heights, and there's no parking at all at University Heights, and actually, I used to ask people up the street parking, and it turns out some of them were workers of (can't hear), which now hopefully has more parking space, but many were just working at the University Hospitals, and just it's easier for them to park there on a regular base and then walk to the hospital, and eventually by 8 AM, the street is packed. So I think that even for residents that want to have parking will be surprised to learn as soon as the sign will be taken off, but actually they are not going to enjoy this change. I realize that the City has sent an inspector or somebody to check what this is about, the bus route is an issue, and you believe it's not. ! just want to say from our perspective, 'especially in the winter when it's difficult to plow the snow when people are parking on one side of the street. Whenever a bus is coming on the street, the incoming cars have to go into driveways of residents to allow the bus to pass. There is no way it pass and the car can pass, and even two cars is sometimes difficult, especially in the winter. There were a few incidents of people coming out of driveways and getting in touch with the car parking across the street, in a T form. I think it's a major hurdle. I realize that the number appears to be 9 to 15 or 14, but I want to point out that only 17 of the 20 houses actually face the street. There are several houses that don't have any access to the street, and they might have been involved. You have more information than I do. It's not public knowledge. Um, so I think that...I'm not sure what are the claims of the people. My guess is the students find it difficult to get up at 8:00 and move their cars if they stayed with their friends, late, and that might have This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #4 Page 9 initiated that issue. At any rate, I believe that they will find out pretty quickly, that this was a bad deal for them, as well. Definitely for us. If you look on the street today, we would have looked at the street, and you would see a huge difference with the people out parking (can't understand). I think it's a huge improvement. I think it's also about a safety issue because of the fact that the cars have to go into driveways, part of driveways, where you can have kids or other types of residents, so I don't think it's a move in the right direction. One of the neighbors has suggested an alternative way, which may be shorter limitation on the parking time, which would prevent people working at the Hospitals from parking. For example, 10:00 to 2:00, parking, but I definitely leave that to the discretion of the Council. So, thank you for your attention. Lehman: Would we like to refer this back to Annissa and have her (can't hear)? Vanderhoef: I would. Lehman: Do we have a motion to that affect? Vanderhoefi Yes. Lehman: And a second? Bailey: Second. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to defer to the next meeting, and refer it back to... Atkins: Is there anything in particular you wanted us to look at? Lehman: Um, I think we talk to the neighbors. As the survey was done, as I understand it, we would be removing the parking, or the no parking. Atkins: Yes. Lehman: There may be a situation similar to Tower Court where we might want to put restricted hours of parking, but I think if we can visit with neighbors and see if there's something that works for everybody, we'll be fine. Wilburn: Can we do possible spot-checking of plates just to see where the residents are? Atkins: Yeah. Lehman: All in favor of deferral? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #4 Page 10 Champion: This is another one of these areas where a neighborhood parking sticker would be really handy. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #5 Page 11 ITEM 5 COMMUNITY COMMENT Lehman: This is an item, or a time, reserved on the agenda for folks to address the Council on issues that do not otherwise appear on the agenda. If you wish to address the Council, please sign in and give your name, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Wombacher: My name is Nancy Wombacher. I'm here to represent the Senior Center Commission, and bring you a brief report on the activities at the Senior Center. I have three items to share with you. Obviously there are many more that I could, but I won't. The three that I would like to share with you tonight are the primary emphasis right now, by the Commission and the staff and a number of the committees, is to update the strategic plan for the Senior Center, and efforts are, efforts towards that end include gathering input from a variety of sources; updating and developing new goals for the Senior Center, an evaluation instrument is being developed which we will use with focus groups. It will help us to gather some feedback and some new ideas so that we can updated and perhaps develop new goals for the Senior Center. I also brought the material, which I will leave with you. It includes a participation summary that shows the usage of the Senior Center, which I think is very impressive. It's for the calendar year of 2004. There's also a summary sheet here that compares the last four years. This packet also includes a page showing classes, activities, and public events in April, which includes, of great interest to me as some of you know, the new band that's starting Monday night. You can all come. You don't have to read music. You don't even have to have an instrument. We'll find you one. And finally, I would like to invite all of you to the New Horizons l0th Anniversary concert on Sunday, April 24, at 3:00 P.M. at the Englert Theatre. The band has been doing for ten years; sixty-five to sixty-six members, and the Monday night group started last September; brand-new beginners; was I think around twenty-four, twenty-five people. So it's been a very successful and a very rewarding pi:oject at the Senior Center. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Bailey: So moved. Wilburn: Second. Lehman: Motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #5 Page 12 Kresowik: Hello again. My name is Mark Kresowik and as you know I am now the official Student Government President of the University. ! wanted to start by thanking you for your resolution on the Student Council liaison. It will certainly help me as I have a final tomorrow, and it's difficult for me, and I'm woefully unprepared for it, coming here and talking with you, but I wanted to give you an idea of what we're working on, and also put a couple issues that will be coming down the pike, so to speak, that very well might interest the City Council and the community at large very much. The first one is, of course, the student liaison and that that application process is continuing. The nominations committee and everything like that will be meeting this weekend, interviewing applicants, and we will have a name for you in order that you can either approve or request another person, as far as it goes. That will be very shortly there. The other thing that I think is very pressing on our minds is the "Great Places" initiative that the Governor has made an executive order for. Are you all familiar with that? That initiative? I imagine .... I will give a quick explanation. The "Great Places" initiative is the executive order of the Governor to combine state funding, the state departments, in order to bring them all together to benefit three pilot places, as it were; be they communities, neighborhoods, anyone who is willing to submit a proposal. Then they will be picking three to, again, focus the state departments technical resources and financial resources in a way that never has been done before, and again, different places will be selected each year, and this program is just beginning this year. And we, as both students and members of this community, and a number of other people, are begilming the process of looking into what a proposal from both Iowa City, the University, and specifically the Cultural District area would look like, and so I'm inviting you all and anybody else in the community interested, to start brainstorming ideas, and that we will be, of course, asking for representatives from all of the invested groups, be they the City Council, the Downtown Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the Neighborhood Council, all the different parts of the University, the James Gang, the Johnson County, or the Iowa City and Coralville Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Johnson County Cultural Alliance - all of these groups that have a very serious say about what will be happening in this community, to take part in that proposal, and we're very excited for it. But those are the, again, the two main things. There are many more, and I hope that if you have ay issues regarding students, that you feel free to contact me at mark-kresowik@uiowa, edu and I wish I had some correspondence to give to you, but if you have any questions, you can always find me on UI phone book email page, as well. So, thank you very much for your time. Do you have any questions about anything? Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, Mark. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #5 Page 13 Champion: Did any of you repeat that number? That email address? O'Donnell: It's in the book. Champion: Ahhh. Kresowik: Yeah, just go on the U-Iowa phone book email page and just search Mark K and you'll find it. Lehman: Item 6 are Planning and Zoning Matters. Oops...I'm sorry. Christoffer: My name is Sherry Christoffer. Dear City Officials: I'm speaking to you tonight to let you know that I'm very concerned about information that Heather Shank, the Human Rights Coordinator, had made public and very, very clear about 216C of the Iowa Code. It concerns service animals. It saddens me to think that her job skills in observing, reading, and interpreting technical written materials, such as Service Animal Law, was completely wrong. She spoke about housing discrimination and service animals at a forum that took place at the City's Public Library, which has been aired on the Iowa City Public Library Channel. This only makes it harder for those of us who do use assistance animals to eradicate any problems with discrimination in the future. I would like to see the responsible government officials to please clear this up as soon as possible. Lehman: Have you talked to Heather about this? Christoffer: I've spoken to her many times about things. Lehman: Okay, all right. Thank you, Sherry. Christoffer: 'I have copies here for you, too, of...I went and seen, talked to, called the Assistant Attorney General's office in Des Moines, and he said, sent me an email because I was thinking I was wrong in the code, and I've been educating people since the year 2001 on this, when I received my first service dog. So in response to your request for information, I look for Iowa Code provisions regarding certification of guide dogs and service animals. I found no Iowa State law provision establishing a certification process for guide dogs, guide dog schools, etc. I hope you find this information helpful. Scott Galenbeck, Assistant Attorney General. Lehman: Thank you. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #5 Page 14 Vanderhoefi So moved. Bailey: Second. Lehman: Motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 15 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS a) Approving the annexation of approximately 62.03 acres of territory located north of Highway 1, west of Highway 218, and east of Kitty Lee Road (ANN04-00001) 1. Public Hearing (continued from 3/22) Lehman: Public hearing is open. Tom, before you start, this is the annexation part; the second is the zoning. Is there any particular...obviously if we don't annex it, we don't have to worry about rezoning it. If we do annex it...how do we, do we do these tw6 together? How do we treat these? Dilkes: Well, I think you can, as you have, opened the public heating, and if Tom wants to say that his comments will apply to both, both ....I think that would be fine. Lehman: All right. Dilkes: And I think as we've discussed, we'll have to continue both until we have an acceptable signed CZA. Gelman: My name is Tom Gelman. I represent Jim Davis, Bob Davis, and Jan Smith, who are owners of the land in question, and my comments will, in fact, address principally the zoning issue, but it's intricately tied with the annexation issue. I've submitted to the Council a conditional zoning agreement, signed by my clients, and a letter of explanation. Sorry for the length of both, but I appreciate your time and energy looking at it. My clients regret that these matters have not been fully resolved with the staff and/or the Planning and Zoning Commission yet, but based upon the Commission's split votes at their last meeting, you can see that there are issues that will require your determination. I would like to provide some additional, actual context and legal context, and then address the unresolved issues with you. And in the course of doing so would be very happy to respond to any questions or concerns that you have. The factual context that I would just like to briefly mention tonight is that this land is very appropriate, a very appropriate area for commercial development, and very desirable for annexation into the city of Iowa City. I think those two facts have been demonstrated by the fact that the City staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council have already agreed to amend.., have already amended the district plan to permit this development in that area. Before a building permit will be issued for any lot in this area that may be developed, no fewer than six reviews by the City and one by the Corps of Engineers will be required, and there are compliance requirements at every one of those review levels. The conditional zoning agreement that's at issue here are additional This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 16 requirements, in addition to all of the others that will, that have already been met or will have to be met, in connection with those seven reviews. After the last Planning and Zoning Commission, the staff provided...I'm sorry. At the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the staff provided a proposed conditional zoning agreement with nine requirements. Those had been under some discussion previous to that meeting. I provided you with a copy of the modified version of that agreement, acceptable to the, to my clients, in which five of the nine requirements are acceptable. The owners have either not agreed to or partially agreed to the four remaining items. Those requiring further dialog include a Kitty Lee Road cash contribution; that is not agreed to by my clients; a fence-design requirement, a non-specific fence design requirement, which is not agreed to by my clients; a Highway 1 sidewalk cost contribution requirement, which is partially agreed to by my clients; and a Naples Avenue traffic signal contribution, which is agreed to in part by my clients. Three of these are public infrastructure cost issues; one of these is a design issue. I'm prepared to discuss each of these, but I think it would be useful to have a little legal basis, a little legal context for that discussion. Statutory authorization permitting conditional zoning agreements is at 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Those agreements must contain provisions that are: 1) reasonable; and 2) directly caused by the requested zoning. It's not an annexation issue; it's a zoning issue. They must be caused by the request of zoning. It is not clear that this section even contemplates contributions to public infrastructure costs. Those contributions are addressed in other statutory provisions, of which there are three: special assessments for infrastructures that provide specific benefit to a property; subdivision infrastructures, a specific benefit in connection with the development of a particular subdivision; impact fees, off-setting costs to provide specific infrastructure benefits or services. Each of these requires specific benefit to the affected property, which is contributing to the cost. Attempts to impose cash contributions for general public benefit have gotten municipalities successfully challenged for imposing non-statutory authorized taxes. Now the four issues. Is there any preference in order? Okay. Kitty Lee Road - we're dealing only with a portion of Kitty Lee Road. That portion of Kitty Lee Road that will provide access to the southerly most lot or lots in this subdivision, or in this development area, is agreed to already in the conditional zoning agreement. What we are, what is at issue is Kitty Lee Road that will provide no benefit and no access to this property, and what has been requested by the City is that the developer here make a contribution here towards the cost of that road, even though there are no plans to improve the road, even though there is no guarantee that the funds contributed will be used for the road, even though the road that is planned in the distant future goes a different direction; and even though there will be no access to the other portions of this property from the road. There is no precedent This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 17 for that under the law or in the City for doing that. This road will benefit the infrastructure of subsequent development of adjacent property, not my clients' property. This is an unreasonable requirement, and this is a requirement that is not directly related to the rezoning of this property. So under both of the requirements for conditional zoning agreement this requirement fails. It should not be imposed on this property. The access to the property will be provided by an internal street that will be paid for 100% by the owners of this property. I don't understand the legal basis for requiring a contribution, for the possible future improvement of this road, with no setting aside of the funds, no escrowing those funds, no time limit for that improvement, and when it's not even clear that the road is going to be improved. I think it's just an unreasonable requirement, and my client is unwilling to agree to it. The second issue relates to the traffic signals. This is at the intersection of Naples Avenue and Highway 1. The City has offered to share the cost of the...let me take one issue off the table. The cost of the intersection improvements, my client has agreed to pay 100%, even though the Planning and Zoning Commission thought the City should pay some of those expenses. The only remaining issue is the traffic lights, which is a significant cost. The City had proposed 90/10 sharing, so the City staff believes that sharing is reasonable. They took a 90/10 sharing, based on the analysis of the .... the review of the traffic analysis and study that was done for that intersection. The problem was that was an inappropriate use of that analysis. First of all, the analysis wasn't created for the purpose of cost-sharing, and second of all, it only considered the development of property to the north. It did not consider the build-out and development to the property to the south. There is undeveloped property to the south that will be built out in the same time frame as the property to the north. The property is approximately the same size as the property to the north, my clients' property. It is zoned more intensively on a commercial standpoint than my clients' property is zoned, and it has the capacity to be expanded in the future, considerable distance, when my clients' property is a finite area. We'd proposed a 50/50 cost sharing of the traffic signals. We think that's reasonable, and we would hope that the City Council would find that to be reasonable. There are certainly instances in the City where the City has born 100% of the costs of traffic signals. There are other instances in the City where the owner of the land has bom 100% of the traffic signal costs, but in my recent experience with a very similar situation for the Lodge property, it was a 50/50 cost sharing, and that seemed to be reasonable in that instance, and it would also seem to be quite reasonable in this instance, given the area to be served by the traffic signal. It's the only infrastructure cost that the City is being asked to contribute to this project, and it seems to be a reasonable infrastructure cost, given the long-term benefit to the City that will be gained from the development of this project. The sidewalk along Highway 1 is another issue. Here I thought it was the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 18 Planning and Zoning Commission's clear direction that they did not think it was reasonable for the owners of the property to pay one penny towards the sidewalk before the sidewalk was actually built. There was great concern that a sidewalk, if ever built, may end up being on the other side of the highway, and not on my clients' side of the highway. So I don't feel that the draft of the conditional zoning agreement you received reflects what Planning and Zoning Commission said. In any event, it was a two to three split on this issue. The issue here is really timing and (can't hear). There is no sidewalk on either side of Highway 1, to the intersection of Riverside Drive, nor beyond that if you continue on Highway 6, to the Iowa River. In recent developments on this area, the Williamson Ford location, the Lodge, no requirements for sidewalks were made, and all of a sudden now there's a requirement, not for a sidewalk to be installed, but for a cash contribution to be made for the possibility of installing a sidewalk at some time in the future. There's no plan now to have a sidewalk; there's no proposal to have a sidewalk. There's no proposal for funding of sidewalks anywhere on Highway 1 at the present time. This is money to be paid for the possible use ora sidewalk sometime in the future, if one is ever built. There's no development to the west of this property, and to the east of this property, there is almost three- quarters of a mile before you come to the first residential property, and you have to cross two entrance ramps and a highway bridge, an interstate bridge, and before pedestrians will walk that way, you will have to build a pedestrian bridge. The likelihood of a sidewalk in this area any time in the near future is very small. My clients have agreed that if and when a sidewalk is built, they would waive any right to protest a special assessment. A special assessment is the appropriate means to raise funds for this type of project. Not to impose it as a cost in a conditional zoning agreement. It's inappropriate; it's unreasonable to do that. Finally, the last item is the fence. This is the design issue. This...the fence issue has to do with an anticipated site plan of the particular use on the property. It is really not a zoning issue. The zoning issue here is zoning the particular parcel as the CI zone, and the fence issue is really a site-plan development issue, and we have rules and regulations, monitoring site plan and site plan review. The specific agreement already, the agreement already provides for a very aggressive landscaping plan. The purpose of the landscaping plan that has been agreed to was to provide screening for that intensive commercial area. Public screening for the intensive commercial area. It's a very aggressive landscaping plan. It's the right solution for a long-term resolution of any development that may be placed on that property. My client found it to be reasonable and is willing to pay the expense, or share the expense of getting that landscaping plan done. This requirement for a design review of the fence that may be built there, if it's developed as it's presently likely to be developed, is a, additional design requirement being added to the site plan review ordinance, with no guidelines and no This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 19 specifications. There's no criteria as to what might be reasonable or what may be required. Just something different, and that's unreasonable to add essentially a zoning provision with no guidelines and no criteria. Plus, it's absolutely redundant because there's already the requirement that's been agreed to, and imposed upon this property in another provision of the CZA for the landscaping. So we've got a redundant requirement with an absolutely unspecified criteria to be imposed later, and it seems that that is an unreasonable approach to this process. This should be a site-plan review issue; not a CZA issue. I think that that's all the comments I would like to make. Lehman: Let me ask you a question. Is the screening that your client has agreed to put on this property also an issue of site-plan rather than zoning? Gelman: The screening? Lehman: The screening, the foliage. Gelman: The landscape plan has been agreed to as part of the conditional zoning agreement. Lehman: I know that, but is that more appropriately a site-plan issue than a zoning issue? Gelman: Well, it might be. Lehman: I don't see the difference between the screening and the fence. Gelman: The difference is that the screening would apply to any commercial use (TAPE ENDS) ...they don't have a fence, whether you just have a blank wall along there. It would apply to any commercial use, and so I think it is a zoning... Lehman: I see, all right. Gelman: This fence issue relates to a particular builder who, or lot owner, who's going to put a particular use on the property. So I think that's why my client was willing to agree to it, as an issue of the conditional zoning agreement. So what we're really asking is for you to approve the agreement in the form that is acceptable to my clients, where they have agreed to those issues that are reasonable, and that can be directly related to their project, and to accept their position on these other issues that are not reasonable, or calmot be directly related to the project. Lehman: Thank you, sir. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 20 Gelman: Thank you very much. Lehman: We may have questions for you before the night is over. Gelman: That's fine. I'll stick around. Lehman: Anyone else like to speak to this? Eleanor, I have a question. Relative to the fence that we're talking about here, can that requirement be part of the site-plan if and when the project we think is going to occur there occurs? Dilkes: ! don't think so. No. Lehman: Well, if...I asked if whether or not the fence, if it truly is a site-plan issue, could that issue be addressed when the property, if it's used for the purpose that we anticipate it being used for, the fence will become a reality. Could we address it at that point, and I'm told we cannot. Franklin: When we're doing site-plan review, it's basically ministerial. That is we have to go by the exact provisions that we have in the Code. In the Code, we don't have design provisions for fences; not having contemplated a fence that was going to be as extensive as this one, 900 feet long. So this is why we included the provision, as suggested, included in the provision in this zoning. Lehman: Okay. Champion: And what was the height of that fence, Karin? Franklin: Twelve to fourteen feet high. Bailey: But there's a grade variation as well, right, that has an impact on the visibility of the fence? Franklin: Approximately from what we've been able to calculate it would be a twenty foot difference from Kitty Lee Road to up twenty feet to where the beginning of the fence would start. O'Donnell: And the fence is 100 feet? 95 to 100 feet back from the highway? Franklin: Correct, 95 feet back, is what I understand. Elliott: 30 yards, three first downs. Franklin: Could be; I don't know my downs. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 21 Champion: I don't know how many yards are in a down. (several talking and laughing) Are we going to discuss this at the Council level now? Lehman: I think we need to discuss it to some degree, so that we can determine whether or not we're going to need a joint meeting with Planning and Zoning Commission. If we disagree with the conditional zoning agreement, does that require a meeting with P&Z? Dilkes: No, I don't think so. Their recommendation on the annexation and rezoning was unanimous. There's some, you know, there's some split decisions on the conditions but I don't...my reading is that doesn't require a meeting with Planning and Zoning, but maybe Karin has different... Franklin: I think if you could give us some direction tonight. Planning and Zoning has a meeting on Thursday, and we could ask them. I think probably they have deliberated on this enough that they're not going to want another discussion of it, and would leave it to you. Lehman: Okay. Folks, let's start out with, I have here the memo from (can't hear) dated March 21. I'll just take the order that's on this one. The first one, the first issue that we have a significant disagreement in is the cost of the traffic signals at Naples and Highway 1 intersection, where I...well, I think we have been asked I think a 90/10, and we ended up with 100. What is the feeling of Council? Is that a reasonable expectation of this development? Champion: Well, I...my only problem with discussing that now is I'm willing to make some other concessions to the developer, but I might want to exchange part of that stoplight for that. Lehman: Well, which one would you like to talk about? Champion: Well, for instance, I think the Kitty Road... Lehman: Kitty Lee Road, let's take that one. Champion: Yeah, that's an easy one 'cause I do think it's wrong to ask them to build that road. Lehman: Beyond the first lot. Champion: Beyond, yeah, so I'm willing to concede that to them immediately. I don't even have to think about it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 22 Lehman: Well, I've thought about it and I would agree. Elliott: Same here. O'Donnell: Right, I would agree too. Bailey: I'm willing to trade it; not necessarily concede it. Champion: Well, and I think also the sidewalk at this point is inappropriate. I'd love to have a sidewalk up there, but it might be years before it's ever built.. A lot of grading has to be done, and I...you're just going to have a sidewalk there. That's the only place there's going to be a sidewalk. Even if we built it now, so I'm willing to concede that that is inappropriate at this point; although I certainly would like the waiver in case we decide to do it in five or six or seven years, that they won't protest it. Dilkes: We had some discussion about that last night, and I did do some checking today. I don't think just the waiver, and Tom and I will have to talk about this, if that's what you end up on; just the waiver and the conditional zoning agreement isn't going to do it. I think we're going to have to do a petition and waiver agreement in order to make that binding, but we'll have to have a conversation about that. Elliott: I think the offer was they would agree to not fight an assessment in the future. Was there a ten-year period on that? For the sidewalk? Lehman: I don't know but there should be some sort of... Dilkes: I think yes, it's still a ten-year period. Elliott: L..as I understand it there was an agreement not to fight an assessment to pay for the sidewalk, if such sidewalk were to be installed within a ten- year period. Dilkes: Right. My issue is simply how to make it absolutely clear that that's binding on success of owner, or subsequent owners, and that's just something that we're going to have, you're going to have to say 'if you want to do that that it needs to satisfy us' in terms of what's required. Bailey: I think that's important, given some of the problems that we have along Highway 1. Sidewalks should have been put in. We have people walking along there. Just because they haven't been put in doesn't create a precedence that we shouldn't put one in out here. So I think we should prepare for putting one in in this area, within this ten-year period, and whatever we need to do to get that tied up so we can, I think would be a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 23 good idea, for planning purposes, because I think that errors were made by not putting sidewalks in... Champion: Oh I agree. Bailey: ...in the other areas. Wilburn: I would agree with that. In some way it needs to be addressed. We're talking about, you know, annex an area and a rezoning, and you know, at some point a council should address the walkability of the area and you can go, you know, from that stretch further to the east, had something like this been done when this area developed, and then we would have sidewalks in the area and we wouldn't have people walking and biking, etc., along that route. So I agree that that is something I would want to see. O'Donnell: I think they've agreed to it also. Lehman: But I do think you need the time frame. O'Donnell: You do need...and I understand the ten years. Bailey: But... O'Donnell: But we're not even certain what side of the road it's going on at this point in time, so I think that's the reasonable way to do it, is to set a time period and...I do want to get into Kitty Lee Road... Vanderhoef: ...wait a minute; let's finish the sidewalk. O'Donnell: Well, are we going to set ten years? Vanderhoef: I'm also looking at escrow, and I would like to put that as an option to go with the waiver, whichever is easier. Dilkes: I think your basic decision on the sidewalk is not ten years. I mean, ten years, I think, is something the Planning and Zoning Commission was accepting. The issue is money now or a waiver of any objection in the event there is a special assessment done in ten years. That's your issue. (several talking at once) Vanderhoefi ...could be in escrow, correct? Dilkes: Pardon me? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page24 Vanderhoef: I said the money now could be in escrow. Champion: That's a lot of money to hold for somebody. Dilkes: Yeah, it could be, but...and I don't know what their position would be. Lehman: I...if they're willing to waive their objection to a special assessment, I'm not sure I this way of doing it, but I also think that the City, if we're serious about having sidewalks out there, that we should be required to build that sidewalk within ten years or they're offthe hook. So I...I mean, the waiver is, I would go with that. The escrow does not have any particular interest for me at this point. I do agree with Regenia 100%. We need...and when this area develops, we're going to have more and more bicyclists, we're going to have more and more folks, and we have perhaps been lax over the years of not having sidewalks where we should have had them, but it's not this developer's fault, so I think if we, if we do give that for an agreement and we put our money where our mouth is and get it built in ten years, fine; if we don't, then there's no expense. Now if it... Dilkes: It's not just getting it built in ten years; it's getting, it's doing a special assessment project to build it. Bailey: Well, and that's my question, because the way that you spoke of the special assessment last night, you had it sounded like many concerns about that, and actually being able to do that. Dilkes: Well, no I don't have concerns that you can do a special assessment project. I think the concerns that were expressed last night were two-fold. One, making sure that legally that waiver is binding on subsequent property owners, and I think there is a way to do that. I don't think it's sufficient to just do it as a waiver in the CZA, but I think that's something that we can c~vercome, that objection. I think what Karin talked to you about were the political issue that Iowa City hasn't done a special assessment project in many years. It requires a super-majority vote, and basically you're delaying that decision, I think, for another Council. To make that decision on whether to do a special assessment. Wilburn: In my opinion... Dilkes: Or just build it, but you wouldn't get the contribution. Wilburn: ...I'm almost looking at it as an enforceability thing. We can, I believe we can make a stronger commitment toward it by taking the action now, as opposed to some type of waiver where you have no control, you know, the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 25 committing the future Council...I think it's easier to do that now with some type of cash upfront, whether it's escrow or not. Vanderhoefi I'm leaning that way also in that if we were to look at the whole piece that we talked about when we were doing Capital Improvement Plan, and the need for sidewalk, and immediately recognizing that it would be phased in along Highway 1, all the way from Riverside Drive to access along all those businesses, and I think probably the only way we're going to get it done in a timely fashion and to meet the growing needs of walkability to more and more businesses that are for shoppers out there that aren't just for car businesses, that they tend to drive to rather than walk to, that we may be looking at an assessment project anyway, and certainly we have not talked about that, but in my mind having started it say from the outside coming in, it gives us something to say, we're committed to having this sidewalk. However we do it and however we plan to do assessment or shared assessment, and work with all of the property owners along that stretch. So my mind says I want to get the sidewalk in first, rather than later. Champion: They don't even know where the sidewalk's going to go. Lehman: As I understand it, there are some construction issues with this sidewalk. Karin, is that not correct? This isn't just like, all ora sudden we go out and pour a four-foot wide sidewalk. Franklin: There's...right now there's a ditch along the property, and the stormwater would have to be dealt with, either n a culvert or a pipe, and there would have to be fill in order to create the platform for the sidewalk. Lehman: So it's not as simple as just pouring the sidewalk? Franklin: No. Vanderhoef: So it's like our Highway 6 project. Franklin: Yes. Vanderhoef: That laid there forever and ever and ever, with all this green space and beautification done by Project GREEN and there was no place for anybody to walk but on the edge of the road. Elliott: But, have we not already agreed on this? Bailey: But Ross' point was will this Council make this decision and we do something with money now, or if we do a special assessment, that's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 26 leaving the decision to future Councils, and it sounds like we're committed to a sidewalk out there and I would suggest that we should make this decision now, to insure that it happens because we haven't done a great job in, along this highway in the past, about creating walkability and bike-ability, so I would suggest that we should... Elliott: We have. We said that there's an agreement that they will not fight an assessment... Champion: In ten years. Elliott: ...in ten years. (several talking at once) Bailey: Did I not follow what you said? Isn't as assessment... Dilkes: No, I think you do. What we need to know is are there four of you who want to get funds from the developer now and plan to build the sidewalk, or are there four of you who want to have, agree to the waiver of an objection to a future special assessment. Lehman: Is there agreement that we believe a sidewalk in the future is a good thing? We all agree to that. How many folks are interested in having an agreement that requires payment up front? An escrow, in other words. Champion: Boy, I'm not. Bailey: If we don't do it now, it's not going to happen, people. Champion: You can't ask them for money when you don't even know if you're going to build the sidewalk. (several talking at once) Lehman: ... and have a waiver of assessment for the building, providing it takes place within ten years? On their side of the road. Champion: Right, of course. How about in front of my house? (laughter) O'Donnell: That's to be decided later. Lehman: Yeah, if it doesn't go on their side of the road, there's no...yeah, all right. Then we've taken care of the sidewalk. We've taken care ofKitty...from our perspective. It may not be from their perspective, but... O'Donnell: Have we taken care of Kitty Lee? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 27 Lehman: We did Kitty Lee, at the end of the first lot. There'll be (several talking at once). Vanderhoefi I need a clarification on Kitty Lee. After we annex it, if the property only, the property owner only does up to the first driveway, how soon does the City envision completing that street, within our territory? (several talking at once) Well, but... Franklin: I don't have a clue. I don't know... Vanderhoef: There isn't any timeline that says we have to complete the rest of that road? Lehman: Ever. Franklin: No, because it's in the county right now. I mean, we wouldn't have been looking at improving Kitty Lee Road until it would be in the City. Right now, there's only going to be fifteen feet of Kitty Lee Road in the City. So...pardon me? Lehman: Fifteen feet of the right of way. Franklin: Fifteen feet of the right of way, yeah. Lehman: Which doesn't include any of this. Franklin: So we wouldn't have anticipated in our Capital Improvement programming the improvement of Kitty Lee Road to date. Okay, now that we know this area is starting to develop, it's something that will come on the radar screen, but because it is accessing a residential neighborhood, it's probably not going to have a high priority. So I think you're fine. Vanderhoef: This is what I'm thinking because there's also this issue of we don't know what will go on the opposite side of Kitty Lee. Franklin: Right. Now it's shown in our long-range plans for residential to the west and northwest. Vanderhoef: But that can change. Franklin: But things can change. Obviously. Vanderhoef: With the property owner and the request for annexation and rezoning it. Just like we're doing now. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 28 Lehman: Okay, which one do you want to go to. The fence or the traffic... O'Donnell: Do we have an answer on Kitty Lee? Are there four... Lehman: How many agree that the improvements for Kitty Lee beyond the first lot be waived? Okay, that one's done. Elliott: How about the traffic lights? Lehman: All right, the traffic lights. Elliott: I see 50/50, 60/40, somewhere in there. Vanderhoef: I do too, Bob. I recognize there's a piece that I keep thinking about. The first guy in on Kitty Lee was being asked to pay for something. Now it's the last guy in that's being asked to do the upgrade on the intersection and the stoplight, and there certainly is benefit to people on the opposite leg of Naples Avenue, and I went out and drove around and looked at the rest of that property in the vicinity and I truly believe that it's going to be developing sooner rather than later, now that we have infrastructure that can handle it, and certainly this lift station that is being put in for this annexation has capabilities to be upgraded and service more area on the opposite road of Highway 1. So I think 50/50 is very fair. O'Donnell: And I agree with 50/50. That's what we did... Franklin: Just a point of clarification there, Dee. The lift station will only serve the area north of Highway 1...okay. Vanderhoef: I understand that. But the capability of upgrading it to serve... Franklin: Not south. Not south of the highway, because of the way the watershed behaves. South of the highway we... Vanderhoefi The west piece. Franklin: West of Kitty Lee? Okay, yes. Bailey: But that won't impact south Naples. Lehman: I agree that, I really think 100% of the traffic signal is too much. On the other hand I think that 50% is probably not enough. I look at the proposed use for this piece of property, which I think will be enormously successful, and I truly hope that it is, and it's going to generate, I think, huge, huge volumes of traffic, which obviously necessitates a light being put in, and I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 29 don't see the development to the south generating those same volumes of traffic, and so I think something less than 100%, but certainly something more than 50%, is appropriate. Gelman: I'd like to remind the Council that one of the concessions made to get to 50/50 was that the Planning and Zoning Commission felt that the owners shouldn't have to pay for anything on south Naples, and... Lehman: I think... Gelman: And the owners have agreed, well, if that's the case, and you go other than 50/50, I would like you to reconsider that issue, for the City to pick up the cost on south Naples, because the owners here, as a concession to get to the 50/50, agreed to do that. That wasn't asked of them to do that. Elliott: 50/50 indicates that the owner indicates it has some responsibility to pay for it, but the 50/50 also indicates that the City acknowledges it will benefit greatly from this activity. Bailey: I agree with Ernie though. I think that this is the property that's going to have the major amount of traffic. South Naples is predominantly office, and then it's the county, and I just don't see the development going that direction, particularly with the lift station. Champion: If we go higher... Lehman: I would say go 80% and the City does the alignment south of Highway 6, and let the City do Naples. Bailey: I think that sounds great. Lehman: And I think that's fair. Bailey: I agree with you. Lehman: I don't know. You don't know numbers, and it's not fair to ask you. Gelman: No, but...I mean all I can look at are the zoning, and the zoning south is more intensive than the zoning north, Ernie. Yes, the one lot is Cl. Lehman: But Karin says... Gelman: Well, John told me it was. Lehman: We love you, Tom, but we... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 30 Franklin: It sounds like it is because it's called Commercial Intensive, but if you look at trip generation for commercial intensive type of uses versus retail uses, retail uses have higher trip generation numbers, and so it's more intensive to the north insofar as traffic is concerned. Gelman: Okay. Then we'll go to the area argument, becaUse area is expandable to the south, and to the north it's absolutely finite. What you see now is what you get, and going south it's very expansive. Franklin: Do I get to counter? (laughter) Right now our growth area, what we can serve, is as far south as you see development on Naples. In...Naples and to the east is in the City, and that area that you see that's developed right now, is the extent of our growth area. Our growth area goes to the west of Naples a little bit, but not south. That is long-range projected to be in the county and not developing at urban densities. So what you've got there now is essentially what you're going to see, except for some redevelopment on the west side of Naples, hugged up close to Highway 1. Lehman: All right. Where are we, guys? Champion: Well, what did you say... Bailey: 80/20 and we do the alignment, is that right? Lehman: That's what I said. Champion: Okay. O'Donnell: I'm at 50/50. Elliott: I'm at 60. Lehman: How many would go for 80? Let's just see what we have. We have.., now we' re getting... Elliott: That's 80/20 with the... Lehman: No, southern alignment would be the City's responsibility, and...now we're at the fence. Champion: I think we've been pretty nice to developers, but I'm not going to give up on the fence, because it is so long and so high, and people are going to be driving by it, and I don't think it has to be a big complicated thing, but I'm hoping...I know we don't have any codes about fences, well, we do have This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 31 some codes about where they can be in neighborhoods and that kind of thing, but commercial fences. This size, I think it's important that it look somewhat presentable without the landscaping since landscaping does die. At least in my yard. (laughter) I don't have a green thumb, but I don't think it has to be a big deal. I mean, come on, it's...there's people who have resources available to them. I'm not a designer; I'm not an architect, but I know in my kitchen I had a wide expanse of white wood when I remodeled it and I had the carpenters put some strips of wood on because it bothered me because it was on the eating side of the kitchen. So I mean, I know it can be done without great expense, and I'm hoping that they'll agree to get together with who's ever going to design this property, come up with some fence, and it be somewhat more attractive than one board after another, and it's like a billboard, like a giant billboard, like a massive billboard. Elliott: I think one thing to remember, this is thirty to thirty-three yards off the road, behind the foliage, and I would hope that the two parties could come to some kind of reasonable agreement that either with texture, which would mean that every ten or twenty yards you could build the fence, come in a foot, build the fence another ten yards; go back out...now that might not even be reasonable. Or, you could do it with horizontal, vertical boards, so that at least there's some design, but I think it seems to me that both sides have a reasonable concern that the City does not want to say carte blanc 'you can put anything there at any time,' and the purchasers do not want to say 'yeah, okay, we're open to anything' and then have the City come in with maybe an unreasonable need for what it might amount to, so you need to come to some kind of reasonable agreement on what type of differences there would be. Gelman: I don't disagree, and I'm thinking that there's room there, but the problem...it's awkward at this moment in time because we can't give the City just a blank check, whatever it wants to. We don't have the requirements in the existing ordinance. Champion: We don't. Gelman: But you're going to require that they seek approval but without... Champion: Because we can, at this point (laughter). Gelman: Connie, I would beg to differ. (laughter) But I don't quite know how, you know, it's kind of silly to get hung up... Dilkes: Well, I think there's been discussion about trying to arrive at a design now and that wasn't acceptable to the developer so... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 32 Franklin: Maybe we can work through some language because we use language a lot, Tom. Gelman: Yes we do. Franklin: That can articulate what it is we'd like to have with this fence. So why don't we work on that? Gelman: And it's really not an owner's issue. It's really a lot owner, the ultimate developer, or builder's issue, if they go forward with this project. We're assuming they will, but if they go forward it becomes their issue. So you'll have to work with them. Franklin: And this provision of the conditional zoning would be only if there is a fence in excess of"X?' I mean, I don't think any of us are concerned if it's what you find typically in the commercial area, but this is just, it was so big. Gelman: But what about the landscaping? Do we then have flexibility in the landscaping? Franklin: We'll talk. Lehman: Tom, I think, and you would probably agree, that a 900 foot long, twelve foot high fence that tums gray is probably not real pleasant along any street, but geometric designs, I mean, I assume there are ways of making that fence more acceptable, without truly increasing the cost. Gelman: I would think that there are, but we have nothing in the zoning ordinance now that says that, but we don't have an indefinite period of time to do that, and we have a potential developer here that could go seek another location where they don't have to deal with this issue. And so, you know, the owners here are trying to balance the interest of the City and the interest of their perspective purchaser of this property. Champion: Well, I think we've also tried to do that up here tonight. Gelman: Absolutely. But what's the guidance here? I don't quite know what the guidance is, except we can, how do we get... Lehman: Karin said she'd write something. She said she'd put some words down. Gelman: Okay, we'll try that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 33 Lehman: Let's try that, seriously. I think we can do that. Champion: And I think the people who might use this property would understand that that is something they might... Gelman: They are very decent folks, and my guess is that they will try to work with the City the best they can. Elliott: I hope as you and Karin talk that you will recall that this Council has a tone that indicates it wants to see this get done, and it wants to see it get done in a very fair way. Lehman: Have we addressed the issues you have brought to us? Gelman: You have. You've addressed them well. Thank you for your time. Lehman: All right, and we'll get...I think what we really need is a motion to continue the public hearing. Vanderhoefi So moved. Elliott: Second. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to continue the public heating to the next meeting. All in favor? Opposed? Atkins: Ernie, may I conunent, just to make sure that Karin has proper instructions? That five of those issues that Tom pointed out were resolved, and there were the four that were brought up. Kitty Lee is taken care of, sidewalk is taken care of, cost sharing and alignment issues have been taken care of; the issue for Karin and Tom to resolve is the fence, and that if they can resolve that, we can bring back to you at the next meeting a conditional zoning agreement. Lehman: That's correct. Gelman: (can't hear; speaking from audience) Atkins: Understood. Thank you. Lehman: Okay, do we have a motion to defer the resolution? Karr: I'm sorry; did we vote on the continuation? I have the motion. All those in favor of continuing, did we say that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #6 Page 34 Lehman: All in favor of continuing? Opposed? Motion carries. 2. Consider a Resolution Lehman: Motion to defer the resolution by Vanderhoef; seconded by O'Donnell. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. (BREAK) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #7 Page 35 ITEM 7 DECIDING THE APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE IN THE FA(~ADE OF 13 S. LINN STREET Lehman: Public heating is open. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Vanderhoefi So moved. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to accept correspondence. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Kading: Hello. I'm Scott Kading. We own the property at 13 S. Linn Street. I apologize you guys have to waste your time on this. Construction company put in an ATM at that location, and didn't follow the proper guidelines and stuff. So, it's unfortunate for their mistake and that's kind of why I'm here in that when we bought, we bought this building in 1999. Then we spent a bunch of time restoring it, making it nice, because it was pretty disgusting when we got it, and over the time, we were the ones, it was actually my doing that put it on the local historic registry, and partly because I didn't want to see it ever torn down. I love this building; I think it's a great place, and wanted to keep it looking as nice as possible. But there's also the black and white fact of making as much revenue as possible, because our taxes have doubled on this thing, since 1999, and obviously our rental income has not. So we're doing whatever, we can. I have a friend who is the president of a bank and he wanted to put an ATM in there. In hindsight that probably wasn't the best idea but the construction company went ahead and put it in, and then the Historic Commission voted against that, and their reasoning was, I mean, I have a bunch of documents as far as you know, what, it talks about what you can and can't do to the property, you know, and you really can't mess with like the structural integrity of it, and things like that, and I really don't feel like we've done that. The Commission decided that we couldn't have this ATM because of symmetry, which I kind of deemed that decision completely arbitrary, which is part of, you're allowed to override them, I guess, is the best way to look at it, or at the very least I guess we can put another one in on the other side. It'd be symmetrical then. So I think you guys have pictures of what it looks like. I think it's not offensive, it doesn't mess with the structural integrity, and I'd like to have you guys vote that decision was arbitrary and allow us to keep the thing in there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #7 Page 36 Champion: I'd just like to correct something. I thought I had read the minutes on this, and I don't think they said you couldn't have one. They said they'd have been happy to work with you on where you might put it. Isn't that correct? Kading: Yeah, well yes and no. They said it could be in the little vestibule area, which would be on one side or the other, so again not symmetrical, or in the alley is where they'really wanted it, and we know how things are with alleys these days so that's not really the... Champion: They're going to be beautiful. Kading: What's that? Champion: They're going to be beautiful. Kading: Okay, well then, I'i1 put it in the alley in a couple years, but that was really, I mean, I apologize for not, for the construction company not going through the right process, but I feel like it was done in a nice way, and we've done a lot to keep the building looking as nice as possible, and helping downtown. So I think... Bailey: Well, and by not going through that process, it's my understanding that then the Historic Preservation Commission didn't have the opportunity to work with you on that because there was no permit obtained, and it was just put in without any kind of process. So, that sort of going around the process, created part of the problem in the first place, because the Historic Preservation Commission does generally work with people to help them enhance their revenues on their historic buildings. O'Donnell: Well you know, Scott, regardless of how anybody in the Council feels about this, either pro or con, to support it we would have to deem that the Historic Preservation Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously and I don't think any of us can do that. Kading: Okay. O'Donnell: So, we're kind of locked into our vote tonight. Kading: Well, I understand that. It does seem arbitrary to me. I mean, I apologize again for the construction messing up. I wasn't really involved in that process, which I should have been, so I apologize for that, but I still think, especially 'cause the fact that it's done and it looks good and it's helping us do everything we can to keep the property because the people who want This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #7 Page 37 to buy it want to tear it down and I don't want to see that ever happening. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Elliott: I want to echo what Mike said. ! disagree with the Commission's conclusion, but there is no basis on which I would find it arbitrary or capricious, and therefore, I have to vote in support of the Commission's decision. Lehman: Well, is there anyone else who would like to speak at the public hearing before we have Council comment? Public hearing is closed. We need a motion. Now this is a motion affirming, this will be a positive motion, affirming the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. Do we have a motion to that effect? Vanderhoef: So moved. Champion: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by Champion. Now discussion? O'Donnell: I think we've already had that. Lehman: Yeah, I think the one thing when I think of Historic Preservation, one of the things that comes to my mind first of all is symmetry, what it looks like, and I have to say that I certainly can't feel that they were arbitrary or capricious. Roll call. Oh it's a motion, I'm sorry. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Elliott: I hope that Scott and the Commission will work together effectively to come to some agreement on that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #8 Page 38 ITEM 8 DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENT TO PROCEED WITH AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT a) Public Hearing Lehman: Public hearing is open. Hebl: I am Mary C. Hebl, and I'm objecting to the acquisition of the landfill because of I've lived there since March 1, 1938, and I object to it all. They're going to take our calving pasture. It's all agriculture land, and they're going to take my pond, and build a road across it. ! don't know how far south of my house they're going to build it, but the noise will be tremendous. In the summertime, if there's trucks going past on the south, where, close to my house, and I object because of the noise and I won't have my south windows open. There, dust from the tracks hauling dirt. I understand they're going, they have acquired forty acres from Robert Rogers, and that is, they're going to haul dirt to fill in the landfill. So I'm objecting to it. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. Lehman: Rick, um, I guess I just have a question for you. I'm not at all familiar with the layout or what we're talking about. I certainly heard what most of you have said about it, dust and whatever. Any way that the City can mitigate those issues? Fosse: There are some things that we can do. Dan, do you want to put the visual aid up? What we've got is an enlargement of something that's been in your packet. It was with the notice that went out...this is the drawing that you've seen before; it's just a bigger version of it, and it would be good for discussion today. We know Mary's got some concerns and I'm not sure we can address all of them, but we want to work with her on those, and what you see on the drawing here, this is the existing landfill site, and this is the Rogers' property that Mary referred to, and we also own forty acres down in this area, and what we're talking about this evening is acquiring in the neighborhood of a hundred, excuse me, somewhere roughly around eighty to a hundred and twenty acres that's shown in the crosshatched area. Lehman: Where's the homestead on this? Fosse: The homestead is right up in the comer here. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #8 Page 39 Lehman: And how do they access...is that on a road? Fosse: Yes, it's on the same road that the landfill uses. And we know that Mary does not want... Lehman: Is that Melrose? Fosse: Melrose goes across right here, and this is the, excuse me, right there is Hebl Road, and that is the access for the landfill. Lehman: All right, now I know where we are. Fosse: And we've looked at going all four directions, and we find that west is the best, and I can go into details if you like, but... Lehman: I don't think that's necessary, but... Fosse: Okay. We have about thirteen to twenty years of remaining capacity at the landfill, and I want to remind everybody that that landfill serves not only Iowa City, but all of Johnson County, and Riverside and Kalona. It's easy to forget about that part of it, but we have about thirteen to twenty years of space, and we have about five to seven years of remaining soil on the site, and remember we've talked about you layer the soil in with the garbage, and that was part of why we acquired these other sites, is for sources of soil, and so as Mary pointed out, we've got to get there and get back with it, and we can try and configure those roads as far south as possible to minimize the noise and the dust for her. Lehman: And how much of that, how quickly would that occur? Fosse: I don't expect that we're going to be over getting the soil until at least about five years. Lehman: Five years from now? Fosse: Yes. Lehman: Okay. Vanderhoefi Rick, on the crosshatched area, there's one small rectangle to the west of the majority of that. Is that a home or what's... Fosse: Yes, that is a home there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #8 Page 40 Vanderhoef: Okay. Lehman: That is not part of this? Fosse: Right. Vanderhoef: And that's part of the people who are selling it own that home too? Fosse: Yes. Vanderhoefi Okay. Fosse: Well, Mary's home is up here, and this this home belongs to Schwartzengrubers, right, which is part of the family, is that correct? Correct. Okay. Vanderhoef: Okay, thank you. Fosse: Mary's daughter. Any other questions I can field for you right now? Okay. Hebl: I would like to say that they do have access on IWF Road, and there's a road that they have access to that landfill. Fosse: I think what Mary's pointing out is that it is feasible to get dirt, take it out to Melrose, IWF Road back and then back in here, and that gets at the short-term issue of soil that we need, although it's certainly less efficient and more fuel-intensive to do it that way, but it does not get at the long- term issue of the space that we need. Vanderhoef: But that still is five years out before that, you think you'll be taking any dirt out of there? Fosse: That's our best guess at this time. Vanderhoef: Okay. Fosse: Changes in regs, changes in way stream, all have an impact on how quickly or slowly that need comes about. Vanderhoefi Okay, thank you. Hebl: My name's Mike Hebl. I own a fourth interest in the forty over here, and couple things that the City Council may not be, or should be brought to your attention, is number one, there is high lines running through this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #8 Page 41 property, and if you're going to be doing anything, you're going to have to be dealing with these high lines; there's two towers on the property and you're going to have to be dealing with those at some time. There's also a very large creek running through that property and I know in the past the City has had problems with trying to control runoff from the landfill in that area. And again, as my mother stated, I do not see why it would be more feasible for the City just to run a road across her property, through a very large creek that has a lot of drainage, and also you're n areas of two highline towers that service a large area of the, part ora very large grid in central Iowa. So I think they need to address those issues also. Thank you. (TAPE ENDS) Fosse: ...the future road, we need to get the soil from this area, excuse me, Mike, is that yours. We need to get the soil from this area over to this area. O'Donnell: So just a straight shot. Fosse: Yup, and finding the tight route is what the design process is about. Lehman: In the process of moving the dirt, you'll make the road. Fosse: Yup, that'll be a part of it. And we, of course, are aware of the highlines and that is a design constraint for the site for us. Vanderhoef: And are those highlines further to the north rather than to the south? Fosse: They cut diagonally through roughly that route there, and there's a lot of things that we can do on either side of them, but working under them is a constraint for us. Vanderhoef: You don't want to touch one. Fosse: No you don't. Lehman: Do we have anything high enough to reach them? Fosse: Um, if we place fill under them, we would. Lehman: Okay, anyone else like to speak to this? Public heating is closed. b) Consider a Resolution Lehman: Do we have a motion? Vanderhoefi Move the resolution. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #8 Page42 Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? O'Donnell: First of all, this just indicates a go-ahead to start conversation. Is that right? Atkins: We can't do anything unless you approve this resolution. I mean, substantially. O'Dounell: And then it will be back to us? Atkins: We can, you can have as much or as little control over the thing. Elliott: In other words, this means go ahead and start talking. Atkins: Yes. Dilkes: Well, it means more than go ahead and start talking. It authorizes the process of condemnation, if negotiations break down. Lehman: Okay, so, you know, in fairness to you, Rick, I truly appreciate seeing something like this five years before you're doing to have to do it. I see what Bluestem in Cedar Rapids is dealing with, and they have tremendous issues, and so I think the foresight of staff here is, I think, should be appreciated by the Council, and my guess is would be appreciated by the folks who live around the landfill too. I don't know what other options we have. Wilbum: Well, the other piece to that is to, you know, the more we beef up our recycling efforts, that slows down the rate we fill up landfill space and just appreciate whatever you can do to mitigate some of the concerns so, the evils, and... Elliott: I would like to hear what Eleanor said one more time, when you said it's more than just authorizing to talk. Dilkes: This resolution authorizes the entire process that we have to, by Code, go through, to acquire property, which includes a good-faith negotiation, and if those negotiations break down, it then, it's the condemnation process. (several talking at once) Bailey: Rick, can you briefly outline why not other directions? Just briefly, why not north, why not east. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #8 Page 43 Fosse: Sure, yup. Let's begin with the east. There's a creek that runs along the east side of the landfill, and then just beyond that is the proposed route for Highway 965. So that cuts off that direction. To the north is a nice piece of land The two downsides to the north, northern route, is that the infrastructure that's in place within the landfill now, there's a leachate collection system along the east side that would need to be reconstructed at a lower elevation to serve off to the north, so we're not well postured infrastructure-wise. Also, the way that the cells would lay out would not fit as efficiently as our existing ceils, as going another direction. To the south, there's the creek that Mary talked about, and there's also this creek that comes along the west side and they come together, and in a "V", and that just doesn't leave a lot of space to go to the south. To the west, the advantages there are that the leachate collection system is in place; it's ready to go. The layout of the eventual cells dovetails nicely with the cells that are there. So, it's a more efficient use of space. And then also it gets us contiguous with the two other pieces of property that we already own, so there's a lot of good reasons to go that direction, and as far as the timing's concerned, the process that Eleanor talked about that's laid out by the State Code is, takes some time to work through it, and especially the good-faith negotiations and then once that is complete, we need to go to the DNR and share with them our development and operations plan for that area, and the DNR will look at that plan and tell we actually own the property. So these are two steps that we need to take that are in series, not in overlap there. So that's part of the reason we're looking out five and seven years in the future because we don't want to find ourselves in a pickle. Lehman: Rick, how long would it be if this property were to be acquired, how long would the owner be able to live in the homestead? Fosse: Oh, we know that Mary does not want to move and we can work with that. Lehman: Okay. Well, I think that's very important. Okay, other questions for Rick? Bailey: Thank you. Fosse: Uh-huh. Lehman: Other discussions on the Council? Roll call... Elliott: I'm interested in the conversations going forward. I'm hesitant to authorize that final step. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #8 Page 44 Champion: That's what it's all about. O'Donnell: How much ground is Mary going to be left with? Fosse: One thing we looked at doing is carving about five acres out of that northeast comer that has the homestead on it. Lehman: Okay. Dilkes: I think, particularly those of you who have been on the Council for awhile know that we try very, very hard to negotiate a successful, you know, an amicable resolution and you have to have condemnation as the final option, or the conversation will end. Because they don't want to sell their property, and so condemnation is the only reason that they would talk to US. Champion: I have to say that since I've been on the Council, when we've taken people's property, we tried not to take it. We tried to negotiate it. I think the City has been incredibly generous with their time and efforts to negotiate with land owners, and I know they'll do the same things with the Hebls. Lehman: But even more importantly, I'm very comfortable, Rick, with the way we handle things when we do acquire it. I mean, being as sensitive as we can to the folks who live there, I think, is something I think we're very good at, that you're very good at, and it makes it easier for me. Roll call. Motion carries. Elliott: Thanks, Eleanor. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #9 Page 45 ITEM 9 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "RULES OF THE ROAD," SECTION 6, ENTITLED "SPEED RESTRICTIONS," SUBSECTION B, ENTITLED "EXCEPTIONS" TO MODIFY THE SPEED LIMIT ON A PORTION OF HIGHWAY 1 IN THE VICINITY OF SUNSET STREET AND MILLER AVENUE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Champion: Move first consideration. Bailey: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion; seconded by Bailey. Discussion? Elliott: Do we have a choice? Lehman: Always have a choice. (laughter) Bailey: Yes or no is your choice, Bob. Elliott: No, no, no, the DOT says it wants to do it. Can the DOT do it? Vanderhoefi Well, in driving it recently, I think it's definitely due. Lehman: Oh I do too. Vanderhoef: It's...lots of times that traffic is only moving 30 m.p.h, because there's so much traffic on that road, so to have one car trying to go 50 m.p.h, in a congested area, not using good judgment, I think it's time to bring it down. Lehman: This deals with the (can't hear). Dilkes: No, Bob, you don't have a choice. (laughter) Lehman: Roll call. There will be no choice. Let us exercise our non-choice. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #11 Page 46 ITEM 11 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND TItE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TItE MORMON TREK BOULEVARD EXTENSION - BOX CULVERT PROJECT Lehman: Engineer's estimate was $530,000; we received what looks like about six bids; low bid being McCulley Culvert Company from Barnes City, Iowa, at $396,505.20. Public works is recommending awarding the contract to McCulley. Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution. Elliott: Second. Lehman: Moved by Wilbum; seconded by Elliott. Discussion? Elliott: Where's Barnes City? Lehman: I don't have any idea. (several talking at once) Elliott: Interesting. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #12 Page 47 ITEM 12 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HIGHWAY 6 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. Dilkes: And I just want to point om you're doing the same thing here as you did earlier. The only difference is that State Code requires the public hearing when it's agricultural property. Okay? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #13 Page 48 ITEM 13 COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS Lehman: Last night we decided on appointments for Planning and Zoning Commission. Bob Brooks and Wally Plahutnik. And for the Telecommunications Commission, Terry Smith. Do we have a motion to approve those appointments? Bailey: So moved. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by Bailey; seconded by Champion. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Elliott: I would just like to say that the appointments we've made to Planning and Zoning, I think, are very important. One of the persons going off of Planning and Zoning, who's term is expiring, is Jerry Hansen, who has done a whole lot, perhaps more than any other single person for his neighborhood and for Iowa City, and I really appreciate the job he's done, and the people who like the nuisance ordinance, Jerry spearheaded that. I think he's done a splendid job. Champion: Absolutely. Vanderhoef: I'll second that. O'Donnell: Jerry's a tireless worker for the community. He really is. ' This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #16 Page 49 ITEM 16 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION Lehman: Robert? Elliott: There are those who felt that the baseball season started on Sunday night. The season was scheduled to start officially tonight with St. Louis at Houston, and I wanted to recognize that. Lehman: You have. We have noticed that. (several talking at once) Elliott: Next! Lehman: Connie? Champion: I don't have anything. Lehman: Mike? O'Donnell: Nothing tonight, Emie. Lehman: Dee? Vanderh0ef: I have just one item. And this is for Eleanor. I would like a memo that describes what I can legally do or not do in speaking out in the public, away from Council table, but still in the public about the municipal electric issue. I don't know ifI were asked to be on a panel, any of those kinds of things. What can I legally do, and not show conflict? Dilkes: I can give you that memo. It's not, it's not really a conflict issue. It's...as long, the issue is use of City resources. City resources cannot be used to support the ballot issue one way or another. So, but you as individuals can certainly have a political position on that. Vanderhoef: And can we speak it from Council table, or is that a no-no? Dilkes: Oh, I think you could, you know, it's a line-drawing issue. I mean, you can't, we're not going to put it on the agenda and have you espouse your personal beliefs about it, but, and since it's not on the agenda you can't say much anyway. (laughter) So, but, but in terms of you individually being out and about, that's really not, that's not a legal issue. But the thing to avoid, and we've gone through this with the Library Referendum, for instance, we, you can't, the City cannot devote resources to advocating one position or the other. The City can provide information, like we did, like the Library Board did in connection with the library ballot and that kind of thing, but we can't do pure advocacy. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. # 16 Page 50 Elliott: The Council is not the City. The City can't take a position. Champion: Individuals can. Dilkes: Individuals can, yeah, yeah, and actually there is a provision in the Code that I think allows a body to pass a resolution in support or against a particular ballot issue. Wilbum: But we can't grab 5,000 sheets of City letterhead and mail it out, advocating one way or the other. (several laughing and talking at once) Vanderhoef: So we could do a resolution even. Dilkes: I think so; I'd have to double-check that, with that provision. Champion: Well, why would we? Lehman: Why would we? Vanderhoef: It's just a question. (laughter) Dilkes: Well, then four of you Would have to agree. Lehman: Okay. Vanderhoef: That's all I have. Lehman: Ross? Wilburn: Just congratulations I believe it's Marilyn Robinson, recent Pulitzer Prize winner here in Iowa City, so congratulations. Bailey: I just want to remind people with dogs, or dogs with humans, that there's an egg hunt on Sunday from 2 to 4 in lower City Park. These are eggs for dogs, not eggs for humans. We had those maybe a couple weeks ago, and it's a benefit for the Johnson County Dog PAC, which is building the off- leash dog park. Lehman: Okay. Two things -just announced the second annual Youth Human Rights Awards celebration is scheduled for April 26th at the Public Library, 7:00 in the evening, in Meeting Room A, and that is a really, really fun event, and I would encourage Council folks, if they have the opportunity, to be there. Heather works very hard on that, and I think it's very meaningful to these young folks. And then, we did have Saturday, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005. #16 Page 51 April 2nd, I think, Steve, twenty-five, thirty folks cleaning up Ralston Creek. It was kind of put together and organized by a student named Nick Bunn who spearheaded the three-block cleanup. Removed 1.34 tons of garbage and refuse out of Ralston Creek in four hours. And it's obvious that stuff ends up in the Iowa River, so a big thank you to those folks who helped him. And my suspicion was there may have been some City folks...I'm sure there were. So thanks to him. Steve? Atkins: Nothing, sir. Lehman: Eleanor? Marian? Do we have a motion to adjourn? O'Donnell: So moved. Lehman: Second? Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: All in favor? Opposed? We are adjourned. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of April 5, 2005.