HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-02 Transcription#2 Page 1
ITEM 2 PROCLAMATION.
a. Family Fun Month - August 2005
Lehman: (reads proclamation) I am going to come up front, and I have three of
these to present to three very special young ladies.
Champion: And who might they be, Ernie?
Lehman: Come on, kids. These are my three granddaughters. You know, we do
Student Citizenship Awards and we've been doing that ever since I've
been Mayor, and I have always wanted to give something to my
granddaughters. So, kids...Nicky, this one's for you; Hayley, for you, and
Megan...now, customarily we shake hands, but I don't think that's
appropriate, do you?
Vanderhoefi Give him a hug. (laughter)
Lehman: Now we can smile at grandma. She doesn't know how to run a camera.
(laughter and applause) I may have just abused my office of Mayor, but I
am proud of this. (laughter) And ifI had the chance, I'd do it again.
Vanderhoef: This is family fun!
Lehman: That's right!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
Page 2
#4
ITEM 4 COMMUNITY COMMENT.
Lehman: This is the time reserved on the agenda for the public to address the
Council on issues that do not otherwise appear on the agenda. If you wish
to speak, please sign in, give your name, address, and limit your comments
to five minutes or less.
Hibbs: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I rise this evening...
Lehman: You need to give your name. Would you give your name first, please?
Hibbs: Pardon?
Lehman: You need to give your name first.
Hibbs: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. I'm Bob Hibbs. I live at 606 Reno Street. !
thought I put it down here...all right. I rise to speak just momentarily on
the ballot issue in November on public power, and I want to encourage
members of the Council and citizens of Iowa City to support this issue and
vote "yes" on this issue on the November ballot. My background is in
property management and ownership, and when I retired several years
ago, I was responsible at that time to 650 tenants on six major pieces of
property, and a half dozen smaller ones, as well. Each time I was involved
with the acquisition of a piece of property, and you've all been through
this, all of us that own our own homes. It's a scary undertaking. You're
going to borrow a lot of money, and you worry about paying it off, and
you worry about what can go wrong, but with my own situation, and I
suspect with most of yours, investment in your home has been the best
investment your family has ever made. For a community, the natural
monopolies of the utility systems are the best investments a community
can make in its own future. If you...traditionally these municipal
enterprises have been franchised out for little or no return for the
community in any way, other than the ratepayers supporting a privately
owned enterprise, and that's of course the benefits from that. But to
privately own it, as opposed to public ownership, is an investment of the
citizens of the community in their future, as a community. We tend to be
afraid, and the opponents of this issue are talking about how horrible
amounts of money might be borrowed, most of which are grossly
exaggerated, but to try to scare us into a "no" vote. That's their intent is to
scare us, yet they own, many of them who are opponents, own the system
and they want to keep it. It's a good investment. They want to keep it.
But, they won't set the price. The Utilities Board in Des Moines will set
the price. The community will not. The City Council is not going to run
it, and the City Manager's not going to run it. Just as happened ten years
ago, when the present owner bought it from Iowa and Illinois Gas and
Electric, Mid American Energy - the employee simply took off one
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#4 Page 3
uniform and put on another one with a different logo. And that's
probably, to the greatest extent, what will happen if the community buys
the municipal power system. Same employees fixing it, running it,
operating it, for the most part. It's back to that property ownership thing.
The question that we really face is one the people of Ames and Cedar Falls
have answered of the other two major region institution communities,
have said "yes" they have municipal power systems, and I as a senior look
at that and look at my home ownership, and when I paid off that debt,
wow! Dollars to flow elsewhere, into retirement, whatever. And a
community never retires, but it has parks and other things that can benefit.
So as a senior, I look at it and say it's not going to be as great an
investment for me as it will for my kids and my grandchildren. They're
the ones who will really benefit. Because the vote in November is really a
question of are we going to be a renter of the municipal distribution
system, the power system in Iowa City, a renter forever - or are we going
to take a deep breath and borrow some money and hope it's going to work
out~ and buy it. And it will work out! It's a great investment. If you read
the'mass media now, investment in the utility systems is the hot market.
Why? Because it's a great investment. I urge you to become an owner
this fall, rather than continue to rent a distribution center forever. Thank
you, Mr. Mayor.
Lehman: Thank you, Bob.
Dieterle: I'm Caroline Dieterle of Iowa City, Walnut Street. And I realize that
probably my coming here is an entirely chaotic effort that will bear no
fruit, but I still felt that I needed to say something, and I hope that you will
listen. I felt very sorry for the people who put all the effort into gathering
the over 4,000 signatures to put medical marijuana on the ballot in the fall,
because I know that those people operated in good faith, and I know that
from my own experience gathering signatures, that there are a lot of
people who confuse qualified elector with eligible elector, and I would be
surprised if a fair number of those signatures that were ruled invalid were
ruled because of that confusion. There are always a few that get
duplicated, that is true, but I think that by and large, the petition effort
showed that there was a large number of people who were willing to go
before the public and put their names on the line for this issue, and if you
keep reading the literature, and I know I submitted some to the Council
earlier, in places where this has been put into a survey for the general
public, the number of people who favor the legalization of medical
marijuana is very substantial. It ranges anywhere from 70 to 80%, and it's
a case of where the people are trying to lead the leaders here. If any of
you have ever suffered from intractable, prolonged nausea; glaucoma;
severe depression; some kinds of pain; and have had it relieved by medical
marijuana, you would instantly become an advocate for legalizing it for
that purpose, so that physicians would not have to fear for their safety, if
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#4 Page 4
they were to recommend this to their patients or prescribe it. I'm well
aware that the federal government has taken the stance that it has on this,
and I think that it is one of the features of a rather tyrannical
administration that we have that really isn't willing to listen to scientific
fact, and so I know that the Council has it in its power to simply on its
own, put this ballot measure on the ballot. It doesn't have to wait for a
petition with a valid number of signatures, and I would humbly ask you to
please do this. Put it on the ballot, and let the citizens of Iowa City decide.
If they vote it down, they vote it down, but at least they will have had a
chance. Thank you very much.
Lehman: Thank you, Caroline.
Madden: I'm Hank Madden, and I came not planned but it does fit very well with
Bob Hibbs' statement. I'm with a group called Citizens for Public Power,
and I would like to correct some either purposely misleading, or basically
ill-informed statements recently printed in the Iowa City Press-Citizen.
One recent letter stated that the building, a new electric generating plant,
would cost the citizens of Iowa City more than $125 million. That may be
a fact, but it leaves the readers to think that the proposal of the Citizens for
Public Power is to build a new generating plant. That's completely
incorrect! That's not the intention of the proposal at all. It appears that
another misconception, perhaps purposely spread by MEC, Mid America,
and its supporters, is a plan to build a duplicate facility in competition with
MEC and the cost of these new facilities would be $40 to $60 million.
Again, that's not the plan! The plan is to purchase the existing distribution
system. Note, distribution system only, and purchase - the purchase
would be at a depreciated cost, not new cost. So, we're not talking about a
$40 to $60 million investment. Another misleading statement can be
found in the recent news article in the Press-Citizen. Last week, there was
a very informative article in the P-C, illustrating successful recent
purchases of electric distribution systems by various cities in the United
States. The article also, however, referred to the experiences of the city of
Sheldon, Iowa. They had the experience of fighting MEC in an attempt to
purchase the power system. The article stated that the purchase cost was
$14 million for the system. A system that is smaller than Iowa City's. It
did not mention, however, that the reason the cost was so high is that at
the time, MEC had excess - at that time - MEC had excess generating
capacity, and the IUB, the Iowa Utilities Board, had to calculate the cost to
MEC of the inefficiency of using their generating facilities at the less-
efficient rate, if Sheldon were to buy their power from another company.
This is referred to in the trade as "stranded generation costs" and the
charge to Sheldon for this unused capacity was more than $4 million. As
stated in the Latham report, this "stranded generation cost" would not
apply to Iowa City because MEC now has a generating capacity
deficiency, and will have for the next 25 years. It' s a moot point today. I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#4 Page 5
would encourage all citizens to vote "yes" on November 8th so that the
City Council can appoint a board to draw up a business plan and submit it
to the 1UB, and then the Council can learn what costs the IUB will assign
to purchase this distribution system, and whether operating a municipal
utility would be a viable venture.
Lehman: Thank you.
Phan: My name is Trucy Phan. How many people in this room have heard about
the $10,000 Show? Great, for those of you who haven't, the $10,000
Show is a year-round affair by a young Iowan to get other young Iowans
invested in their communities for volunteering at a non-profit
organization. The way that we do this is by putting on a premiere concert
in the spring for which the only admission is volunteer service. Two years
ago, a rock pianist named Ben (can't hear) performed for an audience that
had served over 13,000 hours in Johnson County. This past April, an
alternative college band named (can't hear) played in front of a crowd that
had volunteered over 20,000 hours across the State of Iowa. I've been to
both of these concerts, and the vibe is just incredible, because instead of
buying your tickets to get there, everybody at the concert was a volunteer
and has served at least ten hours of volunteer service. I think that the
$10,000 Show is a great community project, and that it doesn't matter who
you are, but you can benefit from volunteer service. It not only puts
individuals in situations where they can meet people, and that they
otherwise may never encounter in life, but it also provides a drive for them
to get involved with community projects, and to do things that they may
not be comfortable doing. One great example of that is me speaking right
now. (laughter) But, it's a great project, and I am so excited about it, so
I'm involved and I'm here. Because we believe that you are
knowledgeable, experienced, and in-touch with your community, we
greatly respect your opinions and would love if you could send us ideas or
suggestions or if you could sit down with us for a small talk about the
10,000 Hour Show sometime. If you have any questions, there's an email
address at the bottom of the second side of the handout. Thank you.
Kart: Motion to accept correspondence?
Wilburn: So moved.
Vanderhoefi Second.
Lehman: All in favor? Opposed? Thank you....this is a tremendous project.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 6
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
c. CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 92
ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPPMENT RESIDENTIAL
(ID-RS) ZONE TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY -
SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (OSA-5) ZONE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF KENNEDY PARKWAY
AND EAST OF CAMP CARDINAL ROAD (REZ03-00019)
1) PUBLIC HEARING
Lehman: Public heating is open.
Franklin: Mr. Mayor, before you start the public hearing, there's something I'd like
to clarify from last night. We had discussion of sewer access to the
property to the north. An updated plat that I reviewed today has a 20-foot
sanitary sewer easement to that property to the north. It does not extend
the sewer, but an easement is provided. So the issue that we talked about
last night is moot. Thank you.
Lehman: Thanks, Karin.
Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. My name's Joe Holland.
I'm here on behalf of the applicant for this rezoning to ask you to approve
the rezoning, but not necessarily approve the Conditional Zoning
Agreement exactly as it's written. I'm going to have some comments, and
then I'd like to have Glenn Siders make a couple of comments also.
Lehman: Joe, I have a question. There is not a Conditional Zoning Agreement
signed at this point, is that correct?
Holland: That's correct.
Lehman: Okay, go ahead.
Holland: Because we've not been able to come to terms on a couple of fundamental
issues, which really are policy issues that the Council needs to address, as
opposed to the City staff. They've made their position known. I think
we've made our position known to the City staff, and now I think it's time
for the Council to look at this and decide what the City should do and
what the agreement should be. The first issue is the sanitary sewer
extension, and that really, I think, is the biggest issue. The Conditional
Zoning Agreement proposes that there be an escrow for future installation
of that sanitary sewer to the south of the property. We disagree with
shifting of that cost to the applicant to install that sanitary sewer, and to
the posting of an escrow. What the City Ordinance says, it does not
require extension of the sanitary sewer to boundary lines, pardon me. Try
and make that clear from the outset. I have a copy of the Ordinance here,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 7
and what it says is that the sanitary sewer shall extend to the subdivision
boundaries and beyond, as necessary to provide for the extension of
sanitary sewers to adjacent property. So the real question is, what is
necessary to extend the sewer. Even if you take that as a requirement, as
opposed to having some conditions in it, another section of the City Code
gives the Council the ability to waive those requirements, if the subdivider
can demonstrate strict compliance, would result in extraordinary hardship
because of unusual topography, excessive cost, or other non-such inflicted
conditions. So I think the project meets those criteria in terms of the
topography. This sanitary sewer runs under a creek bottom, up a hill to
the property to the south. It's not a simple matter of installing a sewer
across level ground. Certainly, we think it's an excessive cost from the
standpoint it's being imposed on Southgate at this point in time, and this is
the sanitary sewer that Southgate will never, ever use, because it's only
designed to serve a property to the south. Planning and Zoning, Rick
Fosse, the Director of Public Works, and there are some criteria that go
into this when Public Works decides when it's necessary to extend a
sanitary sewer. Number one is whether not extending the sewer will leave
a property landlocked, so it doesn't have access to the sewer system.
That's not the case here. We have agreed to grant a blanket sanitary sewer
easement across the entire property area, south of the trunk sewer, so that
a future property owner could install a sanitary sewer within that easement
area, wherever they deemed it most appropriate, wherever they needed it
to serve, whatever was being proposed by them and approved by the City
- for the property to the south. So, being landlocked simply is not an
issue. The second thing Rick mentioned was the disruption from
retrofitting. A developed subdivision where you have houses built, a
disruption may well occur. I don't think that's going to be the case here
because the area in which the sanitary sewer is going to be installed is a
wetlands area. There's no building, it's isolated on the north by additional
wetland from the subdivision, trunk sewer runs down along the creek
bottom, not quite in the middle. Probably a third of the way into this
wetlands area. So, the issue of disrupting the lives of the people in the
subdivision while the sanitary sewer is installed from the south, simply is
not an issue in this case. The third issue is cost, and that really comes
down to who pays for it, and obviously, Rick's position is the City should
never have to pay for sewer when there's another party out there that
could be responsible for it. And we don't necessarily disagree with that,
we just disagree with that being our responsibility. First it's the
responsibility of the property owner to the south to pay for sanitary sewer
that's being installed for their benefit, and not for the benefit of Southgate.
So that the policy reasons, at least which Public Works relies upon, to
decide that an extension to a property boundary is necessary, don't exist
here. So that's why we oppose fundamentally shifting that cost over to
Southgate by means of establishing an escrow. The other issue that I
wanted to talk about was a little bit about traffic issues. Unfortunately, I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 8
was not at the informal meeting last night, but this did come up during
discussions before Planning and Zoning. I think by now the Council's
probably familiar in a general way with this site. There really are only
two methods of access to this site for installation of infrastructure, and for
construction of homes in the area. One is across Kennedy Parkway, which
comes offofMelrose and through Walnut Ridge. The other is up, Camp
Cardinal Road, and Camp Cardinal Road really is not a viable access for a
lot of uses. It's charitably described as a gravel road, probably a sub-
standard gravel road. Bringing construction equipment across that, things
like excavating equipment, cement trucks, the kinds of things that are
necessary to install infrastructure, could do some more serious damage to
that road. I think there's also a question of whether we, as the City and the
developer working in Iowa City, should require that access be through city
streets or another city. Camp Cardinal Road is a city street in Coralville.
That property's next into Coralville, and I don't know how Coralville
would react to using that as an exclusive access. Our objection is not to
encouraging contractors to use that access, to the extent feasible. Our
objection is to what the staff has proposed, note that on the face of the
plat. What the City staff has proposed, there would be on the face of the
plat, that to the extent possible, construction vehicle access within the
subdivision will be from Camp Cardinal Road, rather than Kennedy
Parkway, and that sounds simple enough. And then it goes on to say the
subdivider shall make good faith efforts to communicate with individual
builders. When we were in front of Planning and Zoning, I and Southgate
talked in terms of the infrastructure installation. Putting in the sewer, the
water, the streets, all of the components that go in prior to construction.
What's been proposed deals with the individual builders who will be
building homes. Not only to communicate with them, but also and to gain
their compliance with this provision, which essentially, if I read this, tries
to put us in the position of enforcing an obligation to use Camp Cardinal
Road. I heard the people who live in...
Lehman: Joe, last night, I think if...Karin made it rather clear that she did not feel,
and I suspect she's speaking for the staff, that Camp Cardinal Road was a
viable alternative, and that there really was no other way of getting traffic
in and out, except Kennedy Parkway.
Holland: Well I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor, but nobody has made an offer to
withdraw the requirement that this be on the face of the plat, at least to me,
and I've had conversations with Mitch Behr about this on a daily basis.
So, if that is the case, the City staff is willing to eliminate that requirement
that this be on the face of the plat or in any of the documentation.
Vanderhoef: Was that required by P&Z? Was that something that they...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 9
Franklin: This was a condition that was put on it by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, not the staff. What we've been wrestling with is what kind
of instrument to use that would be effective, and I think that Eleanor has
stated to you, as well as myself, that it's very, very difficult to make this
effective.
Lehman: I don't know quite where we are on this.
Holland: ...different recollection of P&Z because I didn't, I don't recall (can't
understand) coming across that strongly, but I guess my purpose is to say,
you're not bound to accept recommendations from P&Z. We don't want
that in the documents, and I think the Council certainly has the power to
say 'you don't have to have that in the documents.' I think those are the
issues that I wanted to address. I think Glenn Siders may have a couple of
additional comments. If the Council has questions for me, I'd be happy to
answer those now before he steps up.
Bailey: Well, I...
Lehman: I'm sorry, go ahead.
Bailey: Go ahead, sir.
Lehman: The wording is that the developer would make a good faith effort to use
alternative routes, where possible, and I think what we heard last night
was that there just wasn't any other possible.
Holland: That's not the wording that I was given.
Dilkes: Well, I think you heard a couple things last night. You heard from Karin
Franklin, her concerns about the use of Camp Cardinal Road for access
because of...
Lehman: Right.
Dilkes: ...the kind of street it is, and then secondly you heard from me that we
don't have any enforcement mechanism to prevent them from using
Kennedy Parkway. So, other than their voluntary decision to agree to use
Camp Cardinal Road, I don't think it's an enforceable provision, and I
think that was shared with Planning, with Planning and Zoning.
Holland: I'm concerned about the "gained compliance" provision in this, where it
appears that we have to use good faith efforts, not only to communicate
the desire to use alternate means, but that we're responsible for gaining
compliance with that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
Page 10
Dilkes: Well, before we spend a whole lot more time arguing about this, why
don't we see whether the Council wants to pursue that or not.
Holland: That's exactly what...
Champion: I have a question before I make that decision. Karin, didn't you point out
on the map last night also, that eventually when Camp Cardinal Road was
done, there would be another access to that property.
Franklin: When Camp Cardinal Boulevard, or Camp Cardinal...
Champion: Yeah, Boulevard.
Franklin: Camp Cardinal Boulevard, when that is completed, and when Kennedy
Parkway is extended fully to Camp Cardinal Boulevard, that will be the
secondary access to this entire area.
Champion: And that could happen before the development is totally done, couldn't it?
Franklin: Ah, no, it's unlikely. Camp Cardinal Boulevard will be completed July of
2006; however, the link between Kennedy Parkway, through Cardinal
Ridge, which ends at Camp Cardinal Road, that's the confusion here
(laughter) that link to the Boulevard is undetermined at this time.
Champion: Okay.
Bailey: I had a question about the sewer escrow. It's my understanding that we're
talking about $26,000, is that the number?
Holland: That's the number, yes.
Bailey: Okay.
Dilkes: That has been the figure, I think, that staff has proposed. It's my
understanding that Southgate's proposal is more in the nature of $22,000.
Holland: We don't...we don't necessarily agree with that, but we've talked about
that and the difference is $3,500. We don't think it's worth making an
issue out of that tonight. We'd like to...obviously, if you're going to
impose an escrow requirement, we'd like it to be less than more, but for
that amount of money, it's not worth the roadblock it could put up to
taking this project along.
Bailey: And, I guess I was just so surprised that you can buy a sewer for $26,000.
I mean, that was my, that's why I was confirming that number.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 11
Lehman: Very dinky one. (laughter)
Bailey: I hope not!
Holland: There was a methodology that went into that, suggested by Rick Fosse of
Public Works.
Bailey: Okay.
Lehman: Joe, I have a question on this sewer, as well. I seem to recall the
discussion last night indicated that when that property to the south of this
is developed, the sewer may or may not be able to go to the trunk sewer
along Melrose. In other words, it may not flow to the pump, which will be
located on your property. I mean, I think it's probably an engineering
issue.
Holland: It's not going to flow to a pump. This is going to be a gravity system that
flows down to the creek bottom off to the property to the south. The pump
is at the north end.
Lehman: No, I know where the pump is. I don't understand...
Champion: It's going to go south, to the highway.
Franklin: The property to the south has relief to it, just as this property does, and
what's unclear at this point is how that property will ultimately be graded,
how deep the sewer would be, whether you would be able to access the
sewer to the south that comes out of Walnut Ridge, and serve the entire
property to the south. That's what's unknown at this point in time, and so
that's the reason for wanting to have sanitary sewer access from the north,
from Cardinal Ridge.
Lehman: And this would flow to the lift station?
Champion: No, no.
Franklin: No, no, it would not flow. It has nothing to do with the lift station.
Vanderhoef: It would flow through Walnut Ridge, and across that way, is what I
understood you to say last night.
Franklin: Right, exactly, but it's a gravity flow sewer.
Elliott: Excuse me, Karin, before you leave, I just want to make it clear. When
we're talking about the sewer system to the south, are we talking about the
developers paying for the ability to access, or are you talking about a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 12
sewer system? Because it seems to me if it's the ability for the property to
the south to gain access to a sewer, then Southgate has to do that, but if
you're talking about a sewer system to the south which will benefit
someone else, then I do have some questions about that.
Franklin: The distinction between system and access if confusing me a little bit here,
but let me see ifI can explain it. As the property to the south develops, it
will have to get access to the municipal sewer system, preferably by
gravity feed. There's one way for that to happen, and that is in the
essentially the southeast comer of the property to the south; however, the
property to the south also has a slope that goes to the north, and it's
unclear at this time whether that part of the property can be served, can get
access, to the sewer to the southeast, without putting in a lift station on
that southerly property, and that the ideal would be that they would have
the option of going north, toward Cardinal Ridge, or south to the southeast
comer of their property, where there exists sewer now.
Bailey: So, theoretically, if we're talking about a 15-year escrow of $26,000. The
property to the south develops in seven years, and it can use the southern
access, and it's graded in such a way that it can use this. We return the
money to Southgate, and the escrow is gone away.
Franklin: Yes.
Bailey: Okay. So this is just a planned for provision, in case the grading is such
that the sewer has to flow to the north.
Lehman: One final question, Karin. Sewer that we are asking them to escrow, they
will not use this sewer at all?
Franklin: They will have no benefit from it whatsoever.
Lehman: There will be nobody in this development hooked up to it?
Franklin: No.
Lehman: Okay, thanks.
Champion: No, it just goes to your property line, isn't that correct?
Bailey: That's what we require.
Holland: I'd just like to make a couple comments. I agree with virtually everything
Karin said. There are a lot of unknowns in this. There are two things that
are known. One is that as part of the infrastructure costs, Southgate is
installing this trunk sewer and tapping Cardinal Ridge into the trunk sewer
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 13
that's in the creek bottom. It's not at the south boundary of the property.
What we're talking about is who pays the cost of extending the sewer to
the south boundary for the benefit of that property owner to the south. We
think it should be that property owner to the south, when they're ready to
develop that, they pay for the cost of tapping into the municipal sewer
system. We don't advance the cost now for their benefit to tap into the
system because this is a line that has no purpose, no utility, no service to
Southgate or the people in Cardinal Ridge. It only benefits that property
to the south, and that's why we're willing, though, to give a blanket
easement across, this is like 550 feet and it's probably 800 feet wide. A
blanket easement over that entire area, they can put a sewer wherever they
want, so access and connection to the system isn't the issue. The cost is
who pays for putting the pipe in the ground, and we think it's fair that
whoever's going to be using that pay the cost of it, not Southgate at this
point in time. That's the real issue.
Champion: And when you say a blanket easement, how long does that last?
Holland: Basically it's perpetual easement, the way it's been proposed, and it's
going to nm to the benefit of the City, so the City has control over giving
rights in that easement to the property to the south, so they can determine
the placement of the .... at least that's the way I understood it talking to
Mitch Behr.
Dilkes: The blanket just means it's over that whole area. It's not a specifically
defined sewer line.
Holland: And it makes sense because at this point, as Karin said, there are a lot of
unknowns. Nobody knows where it's going to...if the sewer comes north,
where is going to be the right place to put that. The pricing was based on
putting it at the very east line of the property, which not coincidentally
happens to be the longest dimension between the trunk sewer and the
south line of the property, so it was maximized, it was picked at the
longest point to do the pricing. And it could be at a point where, it
probably doesn't get any much closer than 400 feet from the south
property line to the trunk sewer, so it's not a huge factor, but that's the real
issue: who's going to pay for this? Are we going to put money up front
now, or when that property develops, is that landowner going to pay for it?
Champion: My concern would be more of the ability to tap into it, and I guess that's
taken care of with ....
Holland: That's taken care of by the easement.
Champion: And the north property too also has an easement now, is that correct?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
//5 Page 14
Holland: Correct.
Champion: Okay.
Bailey: And that's not a blanket; it's a 20-foot? It specifically ....
Holland: Well, there's a difference there because Southgate owns the property to
the north.
Bailey: Right.
Holland: It's there so there's guaranteed access, as that's platted. It may get moved
depending upon where roads and buildings and other infrastructure. There
always will be access, but as it's replatted, it may not be exactly where it's
shown on this plat, but there will be guaranteed access to that property to
the north.
Bailey: And to clarify something you said earlier, the $3,500 that you quibbled
over, you would rather not quibble to block this?
Holland: We want to see this project proceed...
Bailey: Okay.
Holland: ...and we could spend a lot of time arguing about infrastructure costs and
it doesn't seem to be a very productive venture. We're hoping you'll say
zero so $3,500 becomes irrelevant.
Bailey: If you don't want to see that blocked, I can see the negotiation window.
Holland: Any other questions I can answer? Glenn? Thank you folks.
Siders: My name is Glenn Siders and I'm with Southgate Development Company.
That is a 20-foot easement that's platted to the north, Regenia. It goes
through that outlot G that is for future development, and when that outlot
G is developed, we'll have to go through Plalming and Zoning with a
preliminary plat for that outlot. Most likely, that easement will move to
where it best suites that development, but it will extend to the north,
whenever that gets developed. I don't want to harp on this sewer thing
much longer, but I do want to make the point clear that the property to the
south is kind of a unique property because not only is there a ridge line
and that property flows south and north, there are also three valleys in that
area. The proposal that we're being asked to escrow money for is the
longest distance sewer, 550 feet, that's the longest point from our property
to the adjoining property, and that particular sewer is going to service very
little of that property to the south, because not only do you slope to the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
//5 Page 15
south, you slope to the west, and then you go back up hill and then you
slope down. So, when they develop that property, it's uncertain how
much of that property is developable, and then it's really uncertain how
much of that property would benefit from that sewer to the north. I think
that when they would lay that property out they would probably try to
design that so all the sewer would go the south anyway. It's not our
property, but that's the way I would develop it. So, this escrow and,
Regenia, you made comments it's $26,000 for 15 years. That's interest
free, that's 15 years, and I don't know ifI'll be here in 15 years. That can
be a long time. I just don't think that this sewer is going to benefit that
property to the south. It's definitely not going to benefit us at all, and
there is access for them to get to the trunk sewer.
Gelman: I'm Tom Gelman. I'm here as legal counsel and representing the Walnut
Ridge Homeowner's Association. The Association is a group of over 90
families who lives there. There are some officers of the association,
members of the association, here who may also wish to speak later.
Hopefully I can shorten their remarks in terms of my remarks. I've
already written the Council members and I appreciate your reviewing my
letter and seeing the detail. We would really like to emphasize some
major points tonight relating to the owners, the Walnut Ridge owners'
concerns with regards to the development. The issue before the Council is
a rezoning from an interim development to a zone that will permit
development now. An interim zone, as you very well know, is for land
which does not have adequate infrastructure. So the concern of the
homeowners here is to insure that adequate sequencing of road
infrastructure is imposed, or is in place, by imposing r.easonable
requirements in a conditional zoning agreement that are not likely to be
able to be imposed through a later subdivision process. This question of
reasonable sequencing of road infrastructure is not new to this Council, or
to prior Councils, I mean the most recent major example was First
Avenue, and concerns of residents on First Avenue, and this Council
responded very favorably by not...even after First Avenue extension was
built, by leaving that closed until appropriate road infrastructure was built
by the completion of Scott Boulevard. This is a similar sequencing issue
that we have here, where we have the potential for inadequate road
infrastructure, and then imposing upon existing property owners,
homeowners, safety issues. The additional traffic that we're talking about
is infrastructure construction traffic is construction traffic for building of
new residences in this new subdivision, Cardinal Ridge, as well as the
traffic itself generated by the new homeowners that will live there, and if
you're not aware, Cardinal Ridge will double, at least double, the initial
plans for Cardinal Ridge will double the use of Kennedy Parkway if there
is no secondary access, and the two yet unspecified outlots for
development could in fact increase the use substantially more, plus there's
the land adjacent to Cardinal Ridge that could in fact be developed before
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 16
additional road infrastructure would be included. So the problem arises, if
we do not reasonably limit the extent of development west of Walnut
Ridge until adequate street infrastructure is in place, the result will be to
place un.anticipated traffic, and I want to emphasize unanticipated traffic
on Kennedy Parkway. The traffic intensity was not anticipated, and that's
very clearly reflected in the fact that Kennedy Parkway was not built to
collector street standards. It was an intentional decision by the Planning
and Zoning Commission, by the City Council, by the developer that
Kennedy Parkway not be built to collector street standards because it was
assumed that Kennedy Parkway would have less than collector street
traffic. So that...so Kennedy Parkway does not have sidewalks as most
collector streets would have, and it has a narrower width than most
collector streets, and so we have circumstances here...so that circumstance
clearly demonstrates that the level of traffic that is likely to occur here and
to be maximized really was never anticipated. So, we're dealing with the
situation of anticipated traffic from the development of property west,
with no indication of the extent that development may impose additional
traffic on this one street. It was reasonable at the time to limit, to relieve
the developer of those additional requirements for that street
infrastructure, but it would be unreasonable now if secondary access was
not provided in a reasonable time frame. Without a clear indication of
when the secondary access will be available, it is therefore unreasonable to
permit unlimited development west of (TAPE ENDS) Camp Cardinal
Road and its inadequacies, and we also don't know when Kennedy
Parkway will ever be connected to Camp Cardinal Road. We assume that
it will within a relatively soon period of time, and we also don't know
when Kennedy Parkway will ever be connected to the new Camp Cardinal
Boulevard. We again assume that it will some point in time, and we also
know that that road will be done about a year from now. So, we'll have a
new infrastructure available to be used as an alternative access, but with
no connection to the area that is going to be developed, and we don't
know when. In fact, Karin Franklin just mentioned a moment ago that we
don't know when that extension will be made. It seems to me that it's'
reasonable to place some limit on the time frame, and to provide some
remedy in the interim for safety concerns that will inevitably occur
because of the extraordinary and unanticipated traffic that will occur on
Kennedy Parkway. So, we made some suggestions. These would be
suggestions that could very easily and readily be incorporated in a
conditional zoning agreement. The first suggestion is to reasonably limit
the build-out of the various phases of Cardinal Ridge subdivision and its
outlets, until a secondary access is available, and there's two possibilities
of a secondary access. One is the improvement of old Camp Cardinal
Road; if that were improved and Kennedy were connected, that would
provide an adequate secondary access. The other possibility may be more
likely, because it's totally within the control of this Council, is connecting
to the Boulevard, the new Camp Cardinal road, which will be in place
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 17
within a year, and well before, likely, the full build-out of Cardinal Ridge
subdivision and the surrounding areas. The limit of the build-out could be
a matter of a number of residences, it could be a percentage of residences,
or it could be based upon traffic counts. So, in other words, you could
empirically go out there, you could count the traffic on Kennedy Parkway.
If the traffic were too great to be managed by that road, given its less than
collector street standards, then any additional build-out could be limited,
any additional phases, could be postponed until the connection was made
- extension of Kennedy Parkway- was made to the new Boulevard. It
doesn't seem to be that unreasonable a thing to do, especially as the level
of traffic increases. In other words, it would seem to be reasonable to
accelerate the extension of Kennedy Parkway to an improved old Camp
Cardinal Road, if one existed, or to a new Camp Cardinal Boulevard, to be
compatible with the pace of the infrastructure, of the requirements on the
infrastructure, based upon the density of housing out there. The other
thing that we requested was to not allow the connection of Kennedy to old
Camp Cardinal Road until the new Camp Cardinal Boulevard is in fact in
place. That's probably likely to occur anyway, but we're not sure of that.
We don't want to establish a thruway, or a quasi-arterial through Kennedy
Parkway, using an inferior old Camp Cardinal Road, when we're going to
be so close to the completion of the new Camp Cardinal Road. The other
issue that was addressed was construction access, and again...
Champion: I'm going to interrupt here for a minute. You said not to improve old
Camp Cardinal Road until the new Camp Cardinal Road was...
Gelman: Not to connect.
Champion: Oh, okay.
Gelman: Not to connect Kennedy Parkway to old Camp Cardinal Road, and allow
that to become a through-fare between Coralville and Iowa City to
arterials, before the new Boulevard is at least completed. And I have a
feeling that development will probably be phased that way anyway, but we
don't have any assurances. The other thing that was suggested were some
constrictions on construction access, and I think we all understand the
limitations of old Camp Cardinal Road, but that also goes to the limitation
of using it as a secondary access anyway, until it's improved, and probably
the need to thereby extend Kennedy Parkway to the new Camp Cardinal
Boulevard, sooner rather than later, but the other possibility for a
construction road would be to take it offofthe new Boulevard. It will be
done in a year from now, and what would be wrong with the developer
establishing a temporary access drive, graveled or whatever, from the new
Boulevard, to allow construction vehicles to ingress and egress, that
direction, from an arterial street. That's another alternative construction,
possible temporary construction access that could be made available by
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 18
the developer to alleviate some of at least the construction issues with
regard to the construction of infrastructure, and with regard to the
construction of homes. So there are some available options here that
could be implemented, and now is the time to do it, because like I said,
later on I don't think it can be done through the subdivision process. I
think if the developer wishes to proceed with additional phases of the
subdivision, they are probably likely able to do that without requiring the
connection of this road. So now is the opportunity, a window, to try to
sequence the development of the road infrastructure in the right order,
rather than let it occur in the wrong order. The request is therefore to
impose reasonable limits, not to preclude development, but to allow the
developer to proceed, to build-out to a reasonable level of build-out, but
thereafter to impose limits when the traffic is just inappropriate for
existing Camp Cardinal Road, and to then require that the developer make
the connection to a secondary access that is acceptable, and therefore, to
keep all persons living around, using Kennedy Parkway, including the new
residents of Cardinal Ridge subdivision who will be using Kennedy
Parkway, as safe as possible. So, we appreciate your consideration of
these issues. We would like you to consider putting reasonable
restrictions in the conditional zoning agreement to address these concerns.
Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Tom.
Dilkes: I just want to address, while it's fresh in your minds, one thing that Tom
said. He, part of his argument is that if these conditions about secondary
access aren't opposed at the zoning stage in the conditional zoning
agreement that the City won't have the opportunity to impose those, when
the outlots that are slated for development are later platted. I disagree with
that. I think there's a Supreme Court case that allows us to consider
access subdivision, approval of subdivision plats is all about
infrastructure, so I do think you would have the opportunity to look at the
secondary access issues and what the traffic counts were at that time that
those outlots came in for development.
Gelman: Let me just respond briefly. The concern I have there is that there is a
secondary access now that is available that would meet the City's
requirements which is old Camp Cardinal Road, but it's an inadequate
secondary access.
Lehman: I don't think that would be considered a secondary access if it didn't meet
some...
Gelman: Well, I think...I thought we talked about that at the last Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting, and I thought somebody confirmed that it
would be an adequate secondary access from the City staff. (can't hear
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
Page 19
person in audience) Okay, so that's the concern we have is that in fact, at
least in a build-out of the Cardinal Ridge subdivision, there is an existing
secondary access. It's now available, or could be available, to those latter
stages, but I think we would all agree that it's an inadequate secondary
access.
Dilkes: Well, I think the analysis of the traffic counts in this case have been done
based on the assumption that there isn't secondary access, so I can't
believe that the assumption is that that's adequate secondary accesS
because we've analyzed it on the basis that there isn't secondary access.
Franklin: We've analyzed this on the basis of our secondary access policy and that
Kennedy Parkway is a collector. And it...the projections for Cardinal
Ridge and Walnut Ridge come to a figure which is less than the amount
that would, that you would expect on a collector. Having driven Camp
Cardinal Road just this weekend, I would argue strongly that that should
not be a secondary access. The grade is very steep. It is not improved,
even with the Cardinal Ridge development and the improvements that will
go at the end of Camp Cardinal Road, at its intersection with Camp
Cardinal Boulevard, that stretch in between is narrow. It is not
appropriate, I don't think, as a secondary access, and as Eleanor says, as
we look at these other outlots, E and G I think, that at that time we will do
exactly what we did this time in that we will look at traffic projections,
look at them in the context of our standards, and if the numbers exceed
that 2,500 vehicle trips per day, it won't go forward on our
recommendation.
Lehman: I think you said last night it would require the extension of Kennedy
Parkway to Camp Cardinal Boulevard.
Franklin: Yes, that would be the alternative is that you'd have to extend Kennedy
Parkway.
Vanderhoef: And that's the trigger at that point in time, and we have even done, I can
think of a couple places where we have done a plat, but said no more than
"X" number of dwellings may be built until the secondary access...
Franklin: Right, and those are based on our secondary access policy and the
standards that we have in that policy. I think what Tom is suggesting is
that that sort of thing be imposed earlier, regardless of the standards, but
the debate is about the quality of Kennedy Parkway.
Bailey: What's the feasibility of this temporary construction road off of Camp
Cardinal Boulevard? July 2006 is not that far away.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 20
Franklin: I can't answer that, Regenia. That ground up there is as rough as a cob
and I'm not sure what the alignment would be right now. You'd probably
have to fill quite a bit.
Elliott: When would access be needed?
Vanderhoefi 2,500 cars.
Champion: 2,500 cars.
Elliott: No, when - at what time? I'm looking...you have a problem with sewer
to the south. Should Southgate be charged for that? You have a problem
with access and my thinking is, if the Boulevard is going to be completed
in July of 06, and then is it workable that there would be no need for
access until that time, or are you planning to start very soon, and access is
needed prior to that time?
Holland: Let me see if I can explain that, Mr. Elliott. Camp Cardinal Boulevard
will probably be done about a year from now. The reason it wasn't done
this year, there was an area which required a lot of fill and the engineers
wanted to let that settle. It should be done comparatively early next year.
However, there's a gap of over a quarter mile between Camp Cardinal
Boulevard and the west edge of this subdivision. As Karin noted, the
terrain out there is rough. It sounds appealingly simple to put in a
temporary construction road. When you think about what that involves, it
involves grading and you don't want to misgrade because eventually this
is going to be Kennedy Parkway, so you're essentially designing Kennedy
Parkway for temporary construction road. Then you have to haul in who
knows how many loads of gravel to lay down a base to drive construction
equipment over, and the kind of base you lay down to drive concrete
trucks and earthmovers may not be the kind of base you want for
somebody to drive a truck, who's a finish carpenter or carpet layer, to do
construction with. We really don't have an access problem. There's an
access off Camp Cardinal Road. It's a city street. The Planning
Department has looked at this, said it was adequate for all purposes for not
only development of this subdivision, but for all the dwellings that could
be built in there at this point in time. The issue really is the residents in
Kennedy Parkway don't want the additional traffic burden on Kennedy
Parkway, and we're not unsympathetic to that, but there really is no other
really viable access to do those sorts of things. So I...ifyou have other
questions about that .... we haven't costed out putting in a temporary
construction road for a quarter mile, but frankly it doesn't seem to be a
good investment and make a lot of sense. I don't know when Kennedy
Parkway will get built. It's going to depend upon demand for the area,
and the necessities of development. Also, the area where Kennedy
Parkway needs to be extended is not the same owner as the owner of this
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 21
property. Southgate is working with two different property owners, in
conjunction with each other to develop this so it involves property owners
to the west having to contribute to a road to serve this property,
prematurely for their needs.
Elliott: Any kind of a ballpark figure as to what that temporary road might cost?
Holland: I don't have any idea, and I don't think Glenn has looked at...
Elliott: Anything between $10,000 and $100,000, perhaps? Is it that broad?
Lehman: You wouldn't know without engineering.
Holland: Probably more at the higher end of that because of the...see, this is exactly
the route that Kennedy Parkway is going to take, and Kennedy Parkway is
going to be an extension of a collector street between Camp Cardinal
Boulevard, all the way over to Kennedy Parkway where it goes through
Walnut Ridge, and you don't want to go in and make a mistake laying out
some temporary construction road and then have to come back and double
your costs by taking it out to do what's right for the ultimate improvement.
You're going to have to take up all of this gravel and re-excavate to put in
sewer and water and all the infrastructure that's going to go in under the
pavement. So it...I would tend to think it's going to be well in excess of
$100,000. I don't...we really haven't looked at that.
Siders: Bob, I don't think I can answer your question because there's a number of
things. There's some environmental features we .... I mean there's tree
removal that'd have to be done and a whole host of things.
Elliott: The information I've gotten is a very reasonable answer to my question.
That gives me an idea.
Champion: But, Karin, you're also saying that when the traffic reaches a certain
amount, we would insist there was secondary access. Is that correct?
Franklin: That's right.
Champion: And what is, do you know what the traffic count on that street is now?
Not very much.
Franklin: It's in your packet. I'm going to guess here a little bit, but I recall that it
was about ten vehicle trips per day and so there's ninety households, so
900, and then the projection with Cardinal Ridge was guessed at
equivalent to that. That's a little bit higher than what we usually use. It's
usually seven vehicle trips a day.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 22
Champion: Okay, thank you.
Dilkes: Just to clarify, we wouldn't allow further platting if the numbers went
above that.
Lehman: You could complete what you'd started though. Okay.
Wilson: Good evening. My name is Bob Wilson. I'm a private attorney here in
town. I came here to listen about what I think is a legitimate concern this
Council has about traffic, and how you're going to handle this, as this
important development goes through, but as I listen to the argument, I'm
embarrassed to say, I think I represent the clients of the property to the
south for whom the sewer is being discussed. (laughter) And I say I'm a
little embarrassed because I'll take the embarrassment off the Council's
back here a little bit here perhaps. I'm not quite sure why if this is a
discussion about two pieces of land, one which may be benefiting from
another's development, short term or long term, why the two neighbors
haven't talked before they come to you with a proposal. Now, if Mr.
Holland, who I greatly respect, will permit a question. Joe, who does...I
keep hearing they. We've all heard the third person; I think it's a pronoun.
I'm married to an English teacher. No, it's a ...they...you've heard they
to the south, they to the south. Joe, who is they?
Lehman: It sounds like you are they. Does that mean you're going to talk to them
and come back to us? I mean, I think that's what I'm hearing.
Wilson: Well, I'm fully admitting to my embarrassment, Mr. Mayor. I think I'm
they.
Lehman: I see. Will they speak to them? (laughter) And tell us?
Wilson: Because from what I'm hearing is, we understand what the statute says.
The statute says they're supposed to extend the sewer. Joe makes an
argument, a very good argument, that if we extend all that sewer that's a
real burden on us, and the property up there is probably getting a bit of a
gift. I think Joe has used that term. Well, maybe the two property owners
ought to talk about who's getting burdened and who's getting the gift, and
maybe we can work something out where your City attorney doesn't have
to push the envelop on establishing this escrow.
Lehman: Could I suggest that you do talk to them ..... we're going to continue, yes,
you are they, and we are going to continue this public hearing, because
obviously we have some things to resolve and you may be instrumental in
resolving with them, and we will give they the credit. Okay?
Wilson: We have met the problem and it is "them" and "they," right, Mr. Mayor?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 23
Lehman: It depends on how you resolve it.
Wilson: Okay.
Lehman: Please, have at it.
Wilson: Well, like I say, I accept the embarrassment and responsibility of in fact,
but having taken that, please look very carefully at these traffic issues.
Wow, I mean, sewers are one thing, but the traffic you're going to run
through that property, you need to take a hard look at that.
Elliott: I would simply suggest, and Mr. Wilson as an attorney you used the word
argument, I would prefer to think of this as being a discussion because
everything has been discussed rather than argued, but as a Council person,
I would like for the parties involved, and if you want to involve Pogo the
pup with it too, that's okay, but I would encourage you to come up with
your own resolution because if the Council has to decide, it may not be
something that's preferable.
Wilson: And I'm happy to work...if I'm in fact, my clients own that property to
the south. We're happy to sit down and try and discuss the sewer issue,
but I'm not sure...I mean you've got some tough calls here on this traffic.
Wow! Thank you, folks.
Lehman: Thank you.
Holland: You know, I need to respond to that. Mr. Wilson seems to make this very
amusing. I would point out that under the City ordinances, property
owners to the south have had notices, legal notices, about this about this
rezoning procedure, this platting proceeding, have never contacted us. I
think that this idea of negotiating with the property owner to the south is
nothing more than an attempt to delay the process because the only way,
the only thing that's going to solve this problem here is who pays for the
sewer. If they want to put up the $26,000 in escrow, this is settled right
here and now. We need to be back here in two weeks with a signed
conditional zoning agreement with the Council. We don't need to spend
the next two weeks negotiating with the property owners to the south over
who would be putting in what fraction, if any. We need to know what the
City Council wants to do. I think it's a little disingenuous at this stage of
the proceedings for adjoining property owners to stand up and raise these
sorts of issues, and to try and slow down the process because the realities
are that we would like to proceed to a final plat for part of this. The
application has already been submitted. The Planning staff is looking at it.
Grading and work needs to be done this fall, assuming the Planning staff
approves the concept, assuming P&Z looks at it favorably, assuming you
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 24
approve it - we would like to work this fall. We need to move along with
this. We've been to two hearings before P&Z; we're going to be through
two hearings here. I don't see a whole lot of sense in this "them" and
"they" - "Them" coming in at the last minute to encourage us to negotiate
with a property owner who really has no role in this process, unless they
want to put money on the table.
Lehman: Thank you, Joe.
Wilson: I think property owners are entitled to rely on the plain language of the
statute, and I'll put aside for a second Mr. Holland's comment about
disingenuous. He's asking for an exception to the statute. He's asking
you to say, even though we went in there and knew what we were
expected to do under the statute, we didn't buy the property to the south.
We chose not to. Now we're asking you to cut us a break. I'm not here to
stop Mr. Holland. I'm just saying I'm a little surprised it would come to
this point, and Mr. Holland wouldn't make any effort to work this out with
the neighbors before he comes to you and asks for an exception to the
statute. I'll meet with Mr. Holland tomorrow. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Elliott: Now we're arguing. (laughter)
Champion: We've become a courtroom.
Dornfeld: My name is Maude Domfeld. I live at 22 Sumac Court, and I am a
resident of Walnut Ridge, and I just wanted to make a brief response to
something that Mr. Holland had said about the residents of Walnut Ridge
really only being concerned about increased traffic on Kennedy Parkway,
and really our concerns our related to safety, specifically on Kennedy
Parkway. Kennedy Parkway may be a "collector" street, but it's very
curvy, it's narrow, it's windy, and it's very steep, and the speed of traffic
is very fast, and construction traffic is notorious for tearing down the street
because they're paid by the load, and our children wait for the school bus
on Kenney Parkway; our children cross Kennedy Parkway to play with
their friends; and we're just very concerned about the increase in traffic
and how that might impact their safety. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Wenzel: My name is Doug Wenzel and I'm also a resident of Walnut Ridge, and
my comments will also be very brief to you tonight. I think the issue is
very, very clear; it's very, very simple. It is an issue of potential cost to
the developer, potential inconvenience to the developer, versus public
safety. And I want to restate for the record, as accurate as I can, the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
//5 Page 25
comments by counsel for Southgate, and you can look back at your notes
in your record, word for word, but essentially what I heard was that to
allow construction traffic to flow through the residential neighborhood of
Walnut Ridge, there's only two forms of access to Camp Cardinal, in his
view: Kennedy Parkway and Camp Cardinal Road, and the "use of Camp
Cardinal Road could cause damage to the road," versus public safety, and
health and well-being of the children and the residents of Walnut Ridge.
So, I'd ask the Council to act in a way that protects public safety, and also
resolve this in a way that addresses and allows for further development,
which the residents are all in favor of further development, done in a way
that serves the City's interest of further development, at the same time
protecting the public safety. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Baker: My name is Jim Baker. My wife and I reside at 30 Alder Court in Walnut
Ridge. You've heard from our attorney, as well as a couple of my
neighbors. I don't want to replow ground that's already been covered. I
just want to make one point. Why is Kennedy Parkway inadequate for and
pose a safety risk because of its narrowness, its windiness, and its lack of
sidewalks? It's because Southgate came to a previous Council and asked
for a waiver on those sidewalks, asked for a waiver on what a collector
road should look like. I'm here just to ask you, please, Southgate made
this bed, please make them lie in it. None of this debate, or argument,
would be here tonight, except that Southgate made these decisions in the
past. They ought to have to live with them. Thank you.
Ammar: Mr. Mayor and Council, thank you for your time this evening. As...my
name is Lynnette Ammar...as a board member of the Walnut Ridge
Homeowner's Association and a responsible parent, I'd just like to share
some concerns with you, in addition to my neighbors. My own perception
that Kennedy Parkway has a speed problem has been documented twice
by hYOUr traffic studies. Both studies done two years apart found that the
85t percentile of the traffic exceeds the posted speed limit by 14 miles per
hour. This is a public safety concern. When the discussion regarding
traffic and secondary access is presented, staff relies heavily on the
statistics that show Kennedy Parkway projections under the threshold of
2,500 vehicle trips per day, yet the Iowa City Secondary Access
Guidelines also include considering such things as physical features,
pedestrian/motor vehicle conflicts, and special populations for gauging
when secondary access should be required. The physical features
Kennedy Parkway has for your consideration are slopes exceeding 8%,
and two culverted waterways. With regard to pedestrian/motor vehicle
conflicts along Kennedy Parkway, there is a proposed elementary school.
It seems reasonable for us to ask you for a commitment to when secondary
access is going to be provided. You have the responsibility to consider
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 26
public safety. Last night at your working session, the staff also mentioned
that other subdivisions in town have a similar situation and similar road
development, and of the four roads that were mentioned, I personally
drove to two of them to see how they compared to my neighborhood, and
I'd like to tell you some distinguishing facts. Hickory Trail and Phoenix
Drive are each 0.4 miles in length. The topography of these roads is flat.
Phoenix Drive has a secondary access provided by Wild Prairie Drive via
Santa Fe Drive. Kennedy Parkway is 1 mile in length. This factor alone
distinguishes it from most other collector streets, but the topography of
this street isa factor that I cannot believe is being overlooked. The staff
report from June of this year indicated that because Kennedy Parkway is a
dead-end street, it is safe to assume the speeding traffic is residents of
Walnut Ridge. The topography requires that you have your foot on the
brake almost constantly. As someone committed to expending energy on
this topic, I can tell you that it is very difficult to avoid going 40 miles per
hour down the slopes. I am most concerned about teenage drivers, going
to West High School, and construction traffic being paid by the load.
Given how difficult it is for me to maintain the speed limit, I am certain
that they will not. Because of the topography, the residents of Cardinal
Ridge will exceed the speed limit, as well, given that they have farther to
go to exit the subdivision. I do applaud the City staff for considering the
safety of the future residents of Cardinal Ridge by seeing to it that
Kennedy Parkway was in their neighborhood, is consistent with urban
design standards, as well as having traffic calming features. It is that
remaining portion of Kennedy Parkway, in my neighborhood, 1 mile in
length, that needs to be considered since it is the infrastructure that
currently supports Cardinal Ridge. Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you. We're going to have to continue this public hearing,
obviously. Do we have a motion to do that? (several talking at once) We
have a motion by Elliott; seconded by Champion to continue the public
hearing to the 16th of August. That was the motion, correct? All in favor?
Opposed? Motion carries.
Kart: Motion to accept correspondence?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor?
Opposed? Motion carries. We also need a motion to defer first
consideration of the ordinance.
2) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 27
Bailey: So moved.
Wilburn: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Wilburn. All in favor? Opposed? The
motion carries. We're going to take a ten-minute break. (BREAK) We'll
continue. Is there any comment that the Council would like, relative to the
conditional zoning agreement that we're talking about on Item C, which
we just continued the public heating on?
Bailey: Pardon?
Vanderhoef: I would like to just make one comment that I don't think Camp Cardinal
Road is appropriate. I've been out there, also, and to say that they have to
use alternative way into that property, does not interest me, if Camp
Cardinal Road that is being suggested.
Lehman: Well, I think Karin indicated last night, in fact tonight, it's not an
appropriate secondary access.
Vanderhoef: So, that piece that was added on to the plat by P&Z as a "condition," I'm
not interested in that.
Wilbum: I have a question. I mean, the applicant is asking for approval, or in a
sense, the CZA being worked out later, but if we disagree or try and
modify the Planning and Zoning recommendation as presented, then we
have to meet with them, don't we?
Lehman: I think that's...if they chose to meet with us. It's their choice.
O'Donnell: We're required to meet with them if we disagree with them.
Lehman: (several talking at once) They have the opportunity to turn us down.
Dilkes: Sometimes on conditions, specific conditions, they'll chose not to have
that meeting.
Lehman: Right.
Wilburn: Well, it's a sequencing thing too. At which, at any time during that, or
would that have to occur.., should they decide that they would want to
meet with us, if we wanted to change the CZA, would it have to be before
first consideration? Or just before third?
Dilkes: Well, it would have to be before.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 28
Lehman: Right.
Wilburn: Right.
Franklin: What did you say, Eleanor? (laughter) Huh?
Dilkes: I said I'd think it would only have to be before third...
Franklin: Well...
Dilkes: ...I mean, we typically do it before first, but I don't think it has to be.
Franklin: Well, I was going to suggest it's before we close the public hearing
because the CZA, we've got to get in some order.
Atkins: Karin, before you sit down.
Lehman: Other comments?
Atkins: Yeah, I was going to say is there some direction you want...
Lehman: That's what we're trying to get here.
Champion: I don't mind that statement in there, but if it's not enforceable, I don't like
laws you can't enforce, and you made it clear that it's not enforceable.
Dilkes: I don't think it is enforceable.
Champion: Then I would be willing to take it out.
Lehman: All right, is that, is there consensus in that regard?
Bailey: Well, there is a likelihood at some point in the build-out of this, a
secondary access would be available, and that's when the good-faith effort
could be applied. I mean, this is simply asking for a good-faith effort. It's
nothing binding, nor is it enforceable. The recognition that there is a
preference.
Gelman: I think there might be a confusion between construction access and other
access, and in terms of Camp Cardinal Road, old Camp Cardinal Road,
there was a suggestion, and the Planning and Zoning Commission talked
about that as a temporary construction access. In terms of the proposals
that I made to resolve the bigger problems, not the temporary construction
problems, but the bigger problems. I suggested that Camp Cardinal - old
Camp Cardinal Road, could be used as a secondary access, and to limit the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
//5 Page 29
build-out until one or the other of a secondary access was provided. I was
not, and I specifically said, an "improved, old Camp Cardinal Road."
Champion: Right, right.
Gelman: Okay, now I hope that that was clear.
Lehman: Tom? I...(several talking at once)
Dilkes: The good-faith issue is about construction traffic.
Champion: Right.
Lehman: Yeah, Tom, I think we're also talking, basically, about, this is Cardinal
Ridge, is that the name of the development that we're referring to? I think
that's all we're talking about right now. Last night, Karin made it very
clear that any expansion of this area, after the build-out of Cardinal Ridge,
would probably require the extension of Kennedy Parkway to Camp
Cardinal Boulevard, I think that's what it is, but I think that we're talking
about this entire Camp Cardinal Ridge project, this is "A' project.
Gelman: Right, and there are two outlots though that are not platted yet.
Lehman: Right, but those specifically last night we discussed that - when those
come up to be platted, that may require the extension of Kennedy Parkway
to Camp Cardinal Boulevard.
Gelman: Okay, but...and then what is platted presently, or proposed...
Lehman: What's proposed, right.
Gelman: ...will double the traffic...
Lehman: We're aware of that.
Gelman: ...on Kennedy Parkway.
Lehman: We're aware of that.
Gelman: Okay, thank you.
Vanderhoef: And as far as improvement of Camp Cardinal Road, the old gravel
(several talking at once) I suspect that that won't happen until such time as
the outlots are developed, that would be accessing onto that area.
Gelman: I would guess you're probably right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 30
Vanderhoefi So, having improvement on that stretch of road doesn't seem in the near
future.
Gelman: So I think realistically what we're trying to propose then is a connection to
the new Boulevard of Kennedy Parkway, within some reasonable time
frame, based hopefully on some sort of traffic analysis.
Champion: And I don't think that's an unreasonable request to have some kind of time
line.
Vanderhoefi Out standard kicks in automatically...
Champion: I'm not so sure, Dee, that the same standard applies here, and I could be
wrong, but because this road is hilly and curvy, I'm not so sure
it's...2,500? And we're approximately 1,800 cars a day, after
this...Cardinal Ridge...that's the estimate? Is 1,8007 If it's 900 now...
Franklin: My recollection is, and I could go through the book, but I think it was
2,250.
Bailey: It was 2,205, is what I...
Franklin: 2,205? Okay.
Bailey: But we could change that benchmark number, correct? Is that what you're
suggesting, Connie?
Franklin: You could change that benchmark number, yes you could. I would
suggest that you don't change it for a particular case, but that you look at
the entire secondary access policy before you change that benchmark
number.
Dilkes: Yeah, right, I don't think you'd be changing the number. What you would
be doing, what I would be comfortable with, is saying that the other
conditions, the way Kennedy Parkway is built, everything that's been
discussed, requires a modification of that benchmark number.
Bailey: Because what Mr. Gelman said is the traffic would double. That probably
would be around, I mean, (can't hear) still wouldn't hit it, if it would
double with the current numbers, it looks like, what is it, 1,0007 (several
talking at once)
Franklin: No, doubling the count, or if you have an estimate of ten vehicle trips per
day, ten vehicle trips per day for Walnut Ridge now.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 31
Bailey: Uh-huh.
Franklin: And 90 households, so that's 900 trips. Doubling that would go to 1,800.
Bailey: Right.
Franklin: The number that I recall, or that you are seeing there in the traffic study,
was 2,205 was the projection for Cardinal Ridge, Walnut Ridge, together
with full build-out. Then, if you add on to that Outlot E and G, it is likely,
as Ernie says, that you're going to go over that 2,500 and there's going to
be a requirement to extend Kennedy Parkway. The question is, do you
require an extension of Kennedy Parkway, before it hits that threshold of
the 2,500, and then what is the point, what is the point at which you do
that, and what is the rationale behind it, such that you distinguish this from
other cases that will come before you. I think one of the residents has
given you some criteria that you could use to make that decision.
Vanderhoef: But it would be following then for all future...(several talking at once)
Dilkes: That's why we're not talking about changing the threshold. We're
talking.., and that's the guideline to be considered in light of the other
factors, and which are the topography of the street, etc. So that's why I'm
saying it doesn't really have any relevance for future..I mean, it's specific
to this situation.
Bailey: So we could put it as conditions specific to this situation.
Vanderhoef: But we can't dictate which way they go, so it could well be that the outlot
to the north would be the next one being developed, so therefore, that's
when some improvements would be made on old Camp Cardinal Road.
So it could end up, you know, if that would be the development that would
trigger the...
Dilkes: But we...I don't think we have to deal with the outlots because when the
outlots come in to be platted, you will have an opportunity to reassess
secondary access at that time. We're talking about the current platting.
Vanderhoef: Right. All I was doing was surmising that it might happen that it goes
north, which is something that Mr. Gelman spoke about, that the people in
Walnut Ridge don't want old Camp Cardinal Road connected to Kennedy
Parkway before it's connected out to Kennedy Boulevard, because that
would create the Highway 6 to Melrose cut through, so...it's just a
future...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 32
Gelman: Dee, what I said was, again, a sequencing issue. I'm sorry for the
confusion. We would not want to have that connection to old Camp
Cardinal Road before the new Boulevard is complete.
Vanderhoefi And I'm saying that if the north outlot were developed first, and that was
the one that triggered the secondary access, I can see where the
construction might well go on old Camp Cardinal Road, rather than the
full terrain piece going on west, over to...
Gelman: I don't think they're going to build the outlot first because it's not even
platted. (person speaking from audience)
Lehman: All right, let's...
Dilkes: You clearly do. If they're going to do it, then you...but I mentioned,
because you two had spoken about having this discussion, Joe, and the
Mayor, and so I specifically told Tom, you better come back in here
because there's going to be further discussion about it, but you're
absolutely right. If Tom's going to debate it, then they get the chance to
debate it.
Lehman: Let's...could I suggest that because of the configuration of Kennedy
Parkway, the width of it, the steep slope, and whatever there is involved,
that we could perhaps, as part of the CZA, put a restriction that when
traffic levels reach a certain level on that street, that secondary access be
required, within a certain...I mean, I think at that time you also must give
a time period...
Bailey: Sure.
Champion: Yeah, exactly.
Lehman: ...for them to do that. You can't just suddenly go out and shut off
everybody's building, but...is that a reasonable...
Dilkes: We're going to continue...I don't think, I mean, Karin, you can weigh in
on this, but I think you're going to have to pick a time. I mean, you
can't...we're going to do constant traffic counts on those streets, and
make...and then at that point require secondary access? I don't think
that's a very workable situation.
Champion: That's what we have you for!
Dilkes: Well, I'm telling you that's not a workable situation. (laughter)
Lehman: How do you...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 33
Franklin: If the Council is interested in putting in some kind of provision in this
CZA that is going to address the concerns of the residents in Walnut
Ridge, I would like to have the time to consult with Jeff Davidson, who
does this stuff all the time, and look at our secondary access policy so we
don't totally blow the policy, and have a reasonable way to approach this,
within the context of the policy, that calls out the features of this particular
situation that are different, that would make you apply the policy different
than you would otherwise. You know? Because we have to be fair to all
the parties concerned here, and...
O'Donnell: Could you do that then, Karin, and get back with us on the 15th?
Franklin: I would be delighted.
Dilkes: Can...are we sure that there are four members of the Council that want to
pursue that?
Bailey: Yes.
Lehman: Let me ask one other question. Does the Council, as a group, agree that
construction traffic, initially for a project like this, is probably going to
have to use Kennedy Parkway.
Champion: Of course!
Lehman: There is no other alternative. All right, so we're not talking about
requiring a secondary access to start with. This is something that's going
to have to occur. Then, if you can work out something with Jeff as far as
looking at the configuration of the street, the constraints, because of grade,
and come up with some way of saying after it reaches a
certain...whatever...work it out with Joe and Southgate. Is that something
that Council is interested in pursuing? (several talking at once)
Vanderhoefi Then I have one more request from Jeff, if you'll pass it on, please?
Lynnette, and I'm sorry I didn't catch your last name, but the
homeowner's association out there, I'd like them to have a copy of what
traffic calming rules are because...
Lehman: We don't do them on collectors.
Vanderhoef: That's exactly right, and so I need to take that off the table, and I want
them to see the policy that we have, so if we could just send a copy of the
policy out to them, so they understand it. (person talking in audience)
Okay. You know about it, and it's not going to happen.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 34
Lehman: That, I think, addresses the construction traffic and development. Relative
to the sewer issue, what is .... what's the Council's pleasure? Or what are
our thoughts to give some kind of direction.
Champion: I'm happy with the easement on the north end, and I'm happy with the
easement on the south end. Am I correct in my understanding that if you
did take this sewer to your property line, Southgate, that it might not even
be used there. Is that correct, Karin? You don't know for sure if that's
where it would be used? Well, then I find it ridiculous...
Lehman: Well, that's why they're asking for (several talking at once)
Bailey: We're not taking a sewer, we're asking for an escrow. A 15-year escrow.
Vanderhoef: To build it if it has to be built.
Elliott: The people who benefit from the sewer should pay for the sewer.
Bailey: I'm thinking the City should never have to pay for a sewer. (TAPE
ENDS) but the grading is going to be on that property to the south. I think
it's just prudent to do the escrow, because if it tums out that the south
property can hook up to the south and that it all works, then this money is
returned.
Elliott: Yeah, but why is it that the current property to the north is being charged
with something that will be used in the south. If someone wants to
develop the property in the south, they need to be told, 'Here are the
expenses you're going to have to incur for the sewer.' They're the ones
who benefit.
Bailey: That's not our policy. Our policy is to take it to the property line. (several
talking at once)
Champion: My point is, Regenia, if they put the sewer in to their property lines, where
they've been asked to put it, they will not, it might not even be usable to
the people in the south.
Bailey: They are being asked to put (several talking at once). We're escrowing.
Champion: The escrow.
Bailey: That's the $26,000, or the $22,500.
O'Donnell: And the last thing I heard, "we" and "they" were going to talk and maybe
work out the details.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 35
Bailey: Now, that would be really great!
O'Dolmell: ...give them an opportunity to...(several talking at once)
Lehman: I have a question. I guess two questions. One's going to be for Karin, but,
Eleanor, when we take money in escrow, obviously in a situation like this,
we're talking about $26,000 for 15 years. That's a long time. Do we
return the escrow money, just the $26,000, or does that accrue interest the
way we invest it?
Dilkes: This does not accrue interest (can't hear) proposal.
Lehman: We just leave it lay there for 26...or 15 years?
Dilkes: I don't know where it goes after it...you'll have to ask Steve. (laughter)
Steve, what happens to it? (laughter)
Lehman: Put it in a mattress some place. (laughter)
Atkins: No, we do a little better than that.
Lehman: I know we do, but it seems somehow grossly unfair to put money in
escrow for 15 years and give back exactly what you put in when you said
up front you didn't think you should have to, and you don't even get the
interest on it.
Elliott: In reality, we're, the money in escrow would be considerably more than
$26,000. Because that's $26,000, of which you would have no earnings,
or could not put it to better use.
Lehman: That's my point!
Wilburn: But you're asking for an exception though, if you're asking for an
exception to the rule, then you are...you are, I mean, you're forgoing the
interest.
Lehman: Forgoing the interest.
Vanderhoefi We just did an escrow for a sidewalk that "goes nowhere" and so if and
when the whole system gets built-out, then the sidewalk will be built in
that area. So...
Bailey: I think we need to be plan-ful. I think we have, I mean, this has been
pretty instructive. Part of the challenge with Kennedy Parkway is the way
it was built, and somebody made that decision. I mean, I think we need to
be plan-ful about this, and if the people to the south, if they can come to an
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 36
agreement, or if the people to the south will pay for this, I think that that's
a great solution, but this is plan-ful, to insure that we don't have to build a
lift-station, it'll be gravity flow, whatever. I think we should consider this.
Lehman: Well, let's give them some direction. We need to move on.
Vanderhoef: Escrow, I'm with Regenia on that, but we've got to put it in escrow.
Wilbum: I agree.
Champion: I disagree.
Elliott: Disagree.
O'Donnell: I disagree. (laughter)
Champion: Put yourself on the line, Emie.
Lehman: Unless you can figure it out with your friends, you're going to escrow it.
We're done with this, folks. Moving on. Item D.
Elliott: This has not been pretty, and...
Champion: It's democracy.
Elliott: It's been a little bit embarrassing to me, but it is democracy.
Lehman: Oh yeah, I mean, I think we're (several talking at once). Karin?
Franklin: I'm in the next Item.
Lehman: I see.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 37
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
d. CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.19
ACRES FROM INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1) ZONE AND
MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8)
ZONE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) ZONE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN NORTH DODGE STREET
AND DODGE STREET COURT, EAST OF CONKLIN LANE
(REz05-00003).
1) PUBLIC HEARING
Lehman: Public hearing is open.
Franklin: Just to let you know, we do not have a signed CZA on that conditional
zoning agreement on this, and so would ask you to continue this public
hearing to August 16th.
Lehman: Do I have a motion to continue to...
O'Donnell: ...until August 16th.
Elliott: Second.
Dilkes: There might be someone who wants to speak.
Franklin: Yeah, I'm .... I want you to have it here.
Lehman: I'm sorry. We do not have a motion to continue yet. Public hearing is
open, Glenn.
O'Donnell: I thought you close it.
Lehman: I didn't...I was just getting ready to continue it. Would you like, anyone
like to speak to this? You're here! Please, please!
Holland: There are a couple reasons why we don't have a signed conditional
zoning, Ernie. I think we're close, but this is going to be another one
where you're going to have to give us some guidance. And this I think
has...this is not recommendations I think that really came out of the
Zoning Commission. I think these are things that are probably more at a
staff level, and I don't know if you've seen the conditional zoning
agreement on this particular project. There are very few things in this that
we have problems with. I've never found public meetings like this a very
good place to try and deal with legislation, but I want to read the first
paragraph of 3...paragraph A of the conditional zoning agreement. First
sentence says, "The property shall develop in general conformance with
the concept site plan and concept sketches attached hereto and
incorporated herein." That's a nice broad statement, and we're generally
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 38
going to follow the concept plan. "Any subdivision or site plan shall
generally conform to the concept site plan." That's again, nice kind of
broad statement. It's the third sentence we have a problem with. "Any
material changes from the concept site plan and concept site sketches shall
require review and approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission."
Now, when I was in law school, a professor talked about what are called
"weasel" words, things like 'material' and 'reasonable' because they can
mean whatever you want them to mean. We would like that sentence
removed because we don't know what material is. You know, the site
plan has building placements on it for proposed building. If we move the
footprint of one of those buildings 2 feet, is that a material change? If we
move it 4 feet, is that a material change? If we move a drive 5 feet, and I
understand we may have to move the drive to accommodate the new storm
sewer that's being installed in connection with Dodge Street. Do we have
to go back through Planning and Zoning to have that approved? I think
that's an unreasonable burden to put upon a developer to...every time you
change a concept plan. Remember, a concept plan is supposed to tell the
Council and the City generally what you want to do with the property.
Not to lock in stone building placements, not to lock in stone a lot of other
things. And that leads me to my second point, which is paragraph B,
which says that the buildings to be constructed on this property will be
brick buildings. I don't know where that brick building concept came
from. I discussed this with Mitch Baer and I got an email back from him
saying the concept plan is showing us brick buildings, which is factually
inaccurate. I'm going to hand the Council each a copy of this, a small
copy, and also a large one because it's kind of hard to see some of the
detail on the small copies, but these are the concept sketches for the
buildings on this site. (Council members talking as handouts being passed
out)
Vanderhoefi There...thank you.
Holland: (speaking away from mic) If you look at the buildings, what it actually
looked like to me the first time I saw it is these buildings are sided in red
cedar, not in brick. This operates on a couple different levels. One is sort
of the site-specific level here. Does the Council want to tell the developer
of this property, 'You cannot use stucco. You cannot use decorative
block. You cannot use stone. You cannot deviate from what's shown on
this in terms of any of the materials you use for these buildings.' You
know, you're going to see a zoning ordinance pretty soon which raises this
same issue in a bigger context, where the question is 'Who designs the
property...the buildings on a property'? Is that so fixed by the ordinance
and so fixed by what's intended to be a concept, that you can't deviate
from that without either Commission or administrative approval? I'm not
sure exactly what the answer is in terms of how to word that, but I think
there should be a reasonable choice of materials, rather than saying
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 39
because the siding on these buildings was red on the concept plan, that
you're locked into a red brick faqade on these buildings. I don't know, it
doesn't say red brick, but it does say brick. I think that's completely
unreasonable to say that, and it's not in the community's best interest to
say you can't use stone on this. You can't use a decorative block. There's
some very attractive decorative concrete block available. There are lots of
other materials that could be used in construction of these buildings.
Lehman: Before you go any further, Joe, I happen to concur with some of this. Are
there other...
Dilkes: Can you hear a response from Karin?
Lehman: Oh, I'm sorry, Karin, do you want to ....I'm sorry: All right. Go ahead,
Joe.
Holland: As I said, you're going to see this issue (can't hear) and I've been through
this issue a number of times, where building plans come in and the
Planning Department says 'we're going to give these to our architect and
they're going to design this building for you, or you're not going to get it
build,' and that's really simply what it comes down to, and I know Karin
will take some offense at that, but, and I don't mean for her to. I'm
limited in time to what I can say, but the fact is that this is sort ora
philosophical battle over are you going to give people latitude to design a
quality building, or are you going to be so restrictive in this particular
context that you can't use anything but brick in these buildings. I want to
make one other comment about the conditional zoning agreement, and
then Karin can have her say. There's a Provision in the conditional zoning
agreement that the property owner will dedicate ten feet of fight-of-way of
Conklin Lane. My understanding was, and unfortunately I wasn't able to
talk to Mitch Baer today, that we were going to agree to that if the drive-
through exit for a financial institution was granted, but if it was not, we
were not going to agree to dedicate fight-of-way for Conklin Lane. The
City...
Vanderhoef: For what?
Holland: Conklin Lane. Dodge Street Court runs on the south side of the property,
Conklin Lane the west. It's understandable why if you have some
additional traffic coming out of an exit you might need a little additional
width on Conklin Lane. The City came through and condemned property
for Conklin Lane as part of the North Dodge project. You had an
opportunity then, if you really needed this additional right-of-way, but if
the financial institution portion, if the Council approves that, then there's
no problem dedicating the 10-feet fight-of-way, but if the Council chooses
not to allow an exit for a financial institution, we do not want to dedicate
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 40
10-feet of right-of-way offof Conklin. We prefer to retain that on the
property so we have a little bit bigger site to work with.
Champion: I don't think we had any problem with that, did we?
Lehman: I don't know.
Holland: So, those are my comments. Actually, I think, in most respects we're very
close to an agreement, and frankly, the City staff has been good to work
with on this, and I know Karin will be probably got her hackles up when I
said what I said, but (laughter) I want to temper that by saying that
really...we do this sort of development, you could kind of class this as
infield development. You're dealing with a small, irregularly shaped
piece of property. They've actually been pretty cooperative, and actually
it's kind of a pleasure to work through the Planning and Zoning
Commission to get to the point we are, but these are the last few lingering
issues, but they are important ones to us and we hope you'll consider
those, and again, I think you need to tell us tonight what you would like to
do, and give us a sense of direction if we're going to come back here with
a CZA we can have signed by the end of a public heating.
Lehman: Joe, you've made almost a complete circle. (laughter)
Holland: I did?
Lehman: Thank you.
Holland: Thank you.
Franklin: The first item that Joe raised about the word 'material' - originally the
word that was in that sentence was 'significant changes'. He suggested
that it be changed to 'substantial changes'. In conversations with Mitch,
myself- conversations with Mitch - we decided on 'material changes'
because material is a word that we already use in our code, in the planned
development chapter, in which we are enabled to make a judgment as to
whether a material change has been made and a preliminary OPDH plan,
and whether that change needs to go back through the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council again. So there was some
definition and use of it in the code already, so that's why the word
'material change' is put in place because there is guidance already within
the code. As to the conditions and the brick, the brick is first mentioned
on page two and three of the staff report. There are a series of items there
that refer to the conditions that would go into a conditional zoning
agreement for this project. During the public, or the Planning and Zoning
discussion, the concept plan that Joe showed you was presented to the
Commission. The architect, Steve Rohrback, was questioned as to what
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 41
the material was, and it was noted that it was brick. Brick is what is
mentioned in the staff report in the conditions. At the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting of July 6th, the minutes reflect, "Holland said
(that's Joe) the only points the developer does not agree with are the off-
site screening and draining the storm sewers off of Dodge Street Court.
The other conditions mentioned in the June 16 staff report, brick, and the
recent updates, as well as the points regarding the financial institution and
driveway are all agreeable." My point is, is this is the discussion that went
through the Planning and Zoning Commission. This is the discussion that
is reflected in the conditional zoning agreement. If the developer wishes
to make changes now, we can take that back through P&Z. What we have
presented to you in the conditional zoning agreement is what was
discussed at the Commission.
Lehman: How critical is the building material?
Franklin: I don't know how critical it is, Ernie. I just know that that was what the
discussion was, and that's what has been going through, to this point.
Lehman: Okay.
O'Donnell: This certainly does not look like brick to me.
Franklin: That's why the question was asked of the architect at the presentation.
Siders: (can't hear) I can too! (laughter) I think what the discussion was...I
talked to Steve today and if he said brick at the P&Z meeting, then he
misspoke. The structures are going to be predominantly brick. The
objection we have is the way the CZA is drafted, and we did not have the
benefit of looking at the CZA. We talked about the staff report and the
discussions in Planning and Zoning. The CZA says the buildings will not
exceed 2-story and will be brick. Today's discussion with Mr. Rohrback
and as I recall, his discussion with the Planning and Zoning Commission,
but I don't think Karin was present at, was predominantly brick, but we
wanted to introduce other materials, such as stuccos and some accents, in
this facility. The way the conditional zoning agreement is, we do not have
that allowance. It says it will be brick. Period. That's a little bit more
than we talked about at Planning and Zoning, and again, we did not have a
conditional zoning agreement to review, and agree to, at that meeting.
We're not pushing...we're not going to put up vinyl structures up there.
We're going to put up something that looks very nice, and they probably
will be predominantly brick. But there are areas, such as the retaining
wall area, that we may want to use a block for structural purposes. Could
be a decorative block, and we probably will want to introduce some accent
materials like stuccos, and possibly some metals, other materials, possibly
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 42
even cedar, something like that, to accent a storefront or something. That
is our objection.
Bailey: So if we inserted 'predominantly'? Could we...
Siders: That's a term that's subject too, but I just want to make my point that
we're concerned that these structures are going to be all brick, and that is
not at all what we ever had in mind, and I don't think that's what we
presented to Planning and Zoning.
Franklin: What I'd like to do is to talk to the Chair of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, Bob Brooks. I have absolutely no objections to what Glenn
and Joe are talking about. I just want to make sure that what goes through
is what the Planning and Zoning Commission thought they were
approving.
Lehman: Okay.
Franklin: So, if Bob, if the Commission is agreeable, fine.
Lehman: Does the Council have any objections to what Glenn is proposing? Thank
you, okay. Now, do we have a motion to defer the public hearing to the
16th? Sorry! Please!
Champion: We're getting in big trouble tonight. It's getting late.
Young: My name's Clifton Young. My wife Theresa's with me. Right now we're
the only people that could make it from the Dodge Street Court
neighborhood. Others are on vacation; one elderly gentleman his wife has
died. He was very much opposed to some things that are going on, but he
can't make it. And a few others have voted with their feet by moving.
What our main objections have been for my wife and myself has been the
drainage, which goes down Dodge Street Court to our house and our
basement. The other objection is the access, or the exits of the drive-
through bank onto our street. This is going to create a tremendous amount
of traffic on a little street, and it's, this is basically what we are
complaining about. We don't mind the development, you know, this is
going to happen. People are going to make money. We don't have
anything against that. What we're concerned about is the traffic coming
from the proposed bank onto our street. The bank could be moved back a
little way. The wall could go all the way through, and we would be happy
with that. That's all that we want. I mean, these are our homes. This is
where we live. We're going to be living there until we die, probably. You
know, I just wanted to express to you that this isn't a money-making deal
for us. This is our lives. This is where we go home at night. This is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 43
where we take a walk. I mean, this is our homes. So, please, bear that in
mind. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Bailey: Could I ask a clarifying question? Sir? Even if this exit of the financial
institution means improvement of the Dodge Street Court you still have
concerns, because I drove on that street, and it could benefit from some
paving.
Young: Yes, yes it could, as long as the paving isn't towards my house.
Bailey: Sure, sure, and it's my understanding that improvements would also
include storm sewers that, who knows about drainage, but may...
Lehman:' It should improve the drainage.
Bailey: ...may help, right. So, even if this exit results in improvement to this
street, you're still opposed to it?
Young: Yes, that's been the consensus of the people that we've talked to. Now,
we haven't talked to everyone. You know, there are new people who have
moved in, the duplexes and they really aren't aware of what's going on
with this. But the people who we have talked to, their main concern has
been the exit from the bank onto the street.
Bailey: Okay. Thank you.
Elliott: I have a question. Karin, didn't last night .... isn't the entrance and exit to
the bank just around the comer? They don't use really much of the street,
or did I, do I remember incorrectly from last night? (several talking at
once)
Franklin: It's a drive-through at the west end of the project, so it's close to the
comer of Conklin and Dodge Street Court.
Elliott: So, there's really...at this point the way it's laid out, there's very little
traffic that would continue down the street. Most of it would turn the
comer, enter the bank. Am I correct in that?
Franklin: Urn, there's an access point from some of the residential development,
which is at the east end of it.
Bailey: The parking lot?
Franklin: The parking lot, yeah.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 44
Bailey: And garages, right?
Elliott: Thank you.
Wilbum: I just wanted to comment. Embedded in something that Karin said, and I
think it's very important, you know, it's not just a matter of whether
something is brick or what material, but you know we get these and we get
the drawings and we get the staff reports and the requests for rezoning,
and it's a matter of notice to the public that this is what is intended, and I
can't think of how many times we get something and somebody will say
'Well, I didn't know about that' and you pull out the diagram or you pull
out the report and say 'Well here it is; it's dated'. I don't want us to miss
that; it's not just a matter of wording or a material type of thing.
Lehman: No, I think you're right, Ross. The other thing is that people who look at
this drawing, some see design, some see material, some see trees, some
see signs. It depends on what they're looking for.
Wilburn: But what my point is, it went through a process. It went through our
Planning and Zoning process, and there was notice to the public and
there's a certain amount of understanding and intent. That's the part that
I'm saying...
Holland: I'll try and make my comments very brief. I was also at that Planning and
Zoning meeting. I saw the presentation by Steve Rohrback; I talked to
him twice today. His recollection is, as Glenn related it, that yes the
buildings were intended to be predominantly brick, but there was a clear
intention expressed to the Planning and Zoning Commission to introduce
other materials into this, as part of making these quality buildings. And
so, I asked for a copy of the minutes of that meeting from Mitch Baer
yesterday and was told they weren't available, so I'm a little bit distressed
in being quoted, but it is an accurate quote because I don't think we
anticipated or understood from the staff report that it was going to say the
buildings had to be all brick. If we'd known that, we would have made,
would have had a clear understanding at that point, which probably would
have benefited us all, but that was an accurate quote. I said we knew what
the issues were then; the same issues that are here tonight, other than this
question about the brick, and the first time we really realized we were
going to be locked into that was when we saw the CZA last week. The
only thing I'd ask is if you would make that, at least one of those copies of
that, probably the large-scale one, a copy to the public hearing.
Lehman: Okay. Any other folks like to speak before we continue the public
hearing? Now, we have a motion by Champion; seconded by O'Donnell
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
//5 Page 45
to continue the public heating to August 16. All in favor? Opposed? The
motion carries. Do we have a motion to defer?
2) CONSIDER AN ORDIANNCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
O'Donnell: Move to defer first consideration.
Champion: I just want to ask one more question because we did talk about the
drainage situation last night. Karin, what did you say about that? Would
it be improved? It wouldn't make it worse for them, would it?
Lehman: They'll be in storm sewers.
Franklin: One of the conditions that I think is agreed to is that the drainage from this
development will all go towards Dodge Street. Site drainage, yeah.
Lehman: Okay, I have a motion by O'Donnell to defer the first consideration to the
16th of August. Do I have a second?
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: By Bailey. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: Motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed?
Motion carries.
Dilkes: I really feel...I'm compelled to note that Mitch probably didn't have the
minutes available to him, and he certainly would have given them to Joe
had he had them.
Lehman: Well, they probably had gotten through the process. You'll get 'em, Joe.
Dilkes: They're a form of draft minutes. (Holland speaking beyond mic)
Lehman: We can't talk because...
Dilkes: I'm sorry, but I'm noting that there very well maybe wasn't a conversation
between Karin and Mitch about Joe's question about minutes, and I really,
you know, the implication is not appropriate.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 46
Lehman: Joe, we can't .... Joe, unless you're at the microphone, it doesn't get on the
tape, and you've messed it all up for who's taking the minutes and then
you wonder why you don't have the minutes! (laughter)
Holland: Well, there'd just be a big blank in the minutes, like the Nixon tapes.
There really was nothing intended. I just felt a little ill at ease being
quoted from minutes, after asking if they were available. I didn't say to
Mitch 'Go to Karin and ask for them.' I just think that when you're in a
venue like this, to have information that only certain staff members are
privy to, quoted, and making an implication, I thought the implication was
about me, that I was somehow misleading the Council tonight about what
had happened at that meeting and when it's a City product it's not
generally available, it's used against you, I find that a little bit
unappealing.
Lehman: I don't think it was intentional, Joe.
Holland: Well, it wasn't intentional for me ifI said anything that offended Karin. I
realize that when you get in the heated meetings like this, things are said
and done that there is no intent behind, and I hope that Eleanor and Karin
understand that, for me, that it's part of the process to bring things to a
public body for decision making and hope that they work through to a
good result, and sometimes in the heat of that, things happen and you
forgive and forget and move on to another day and time.
Lehman: Which we are about to do.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 47
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
e. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 3.16 ACRES FROM INTERIM
DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (ID-RS)
ZONE TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-5) ZONE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 218 AND
SOUTH OF MELROSE AVENUE (REZ05-00008).
Lehman: Public hearing is open.
Karr: Mr. Mayor, I don't know that we have a signed CZA on this one.
Lehman: Karin? Pardon us. (laughter) Item e - do we have a signed agreement on
Item e?
Karr: Galway Hills, the rezoning. Are we okay?
Franklin: It's just a rezoning. It's no conditional zoning.
Lehman: Okay, we're okay, folks. Okay, wait a minutes, that's wonderful. Okay.
Public hearing is closed. Do we have a motion?
Bailey: Move first consideration.
Vanderhoefi Second.
Lehman: Moved by Bailey; seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Roll call.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 48
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
f. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.72 ACRES FROM
FACTORY-BUILT HOUSING RESIDENTIAL (RFBH) ZONE
TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING-HIGH DENSITY
SINGLE FAMILY (PDH-12) ZONE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED WEST OF HEINZ ROAD (REZ05-00009).
Lehman: Public hearing is open.
Gordon: Good evening, I'm Steve Gordon with AM Management and I appreciate
your time this evening. We are proposing to rezone 2.72 acres within the
Saddlebrook development from its current RFBH zoning to a PDH-12
zoning. The land sits near the entry from Highway 6 to the Saddlebrook
development, and it also sits adjacent to the community clubhouse. We
are proposing a mixed-use development that, along with the community
clubhouse, will serve as a town center for the entire Saddlebrook
development. The project is designed to maintain a large green space
along Heinz Road, which is currently there, and also maintain adequate
open space around the community center, which we use for a lot of
community events. There will be a mix of light office, retail, and
residential uses, approximately 9,000 square feet will be dedicated to the
commercial uses, and there will be 30 residential units designed above and
adjacent to the commercial space. We feel the town center at Saddlebrook
will enhance the Saddlebrook development, and is well designed to keep
the integrity of the development intact, and also to meet the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may
have, and I appreciate your support. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Steve.
Elliott: Unfortunately, I have another question of Karin, and you've had a heck of
a workout tonight! Did I see something today that indicated that this
rezoning is part of a general move to make it so that you don't have to
have a special zone for factory-built homes that they can be, so you won't
have to have a separate zone for factory-built homes?
Franklin: This particular rezoning is not. It has nothing to do with that. What
you're referring to is a change that is in the proposed zoning code to
eliminate the RFBH zone and deal with manufactured-housing parks as
OPDH-12. Treat them as we would any single-family housing.
Elliott: Okay, that's something entirely different. I'm sorry for one more
question.
Franklin: That's okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 49
Lehman: Public heating is closed.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence?
Elliott: So moved.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Lehman: We have a second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Do we have
a motion?
O'Donnell: Move first consideration.
Bailey: Move first consideration.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell; seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Bailey: I really like the mix-use in this. I think it will be a real asset to this area.
Vanderhoef: Ditto.
Lehman: Roll call.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#5 Page 50
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
j. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT
OF COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, PART 2, IOWA CITY, IOWA
(SUB04-00014).
Vanderhoef: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by O'Donnell.
Elliott: Quickly, where is this? I've never heard of Lake Shore Drive, Flagstaff.
Franklin: It's in the heart of Chicago. (laughter) It's on the west side of, just west
of Southwest Estates, off of Phoenix Drive. Southwest Iowa City, Rohret
Road.
Elliott: Okay.
Franklin: Phoenix.
Elliott: Okay, thank you.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#6 Page 51
ITEM 6 ASSESSING A CIVIL PENALTY OF EITHER $1500.00 OR A
THIRTY (30) DAY RETAIL CIGARETTE PERMIT SUSPENSION
AGAINST T & M MINI MART, PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE
SECTION 453A.22(2).
Chappell: Good evening, Andy Chappell from the Johnson County Attorney's office.
Have yet another, and hopefully the last, civil tobacco civil penalty for the
year. This was a recheck from an earlier violation, and to get tight to it,
on May 31st, an employee ofT & M Mini Mart violated Iowa Code
Section 453A.2(1) by selling tobacco to a minor. The employee
ultimately pled guilty. This is the second such violation by an employee
of T & M Mini Mart within a 2-year period. As such, I recommend that
the Council assess a civil penalty of either $1500.00 or a thirty (30) day
permit suspension, at the business's option. It's reflected in the resolution
because that's the way the code is written, and basically what would
happen is the business then comes to you. They have twenty (20) days to
either turn over the permit, or turn over the $1500.00, assuming the
resolution is passed.
Lehman: Okay, thank you. Questions for Andy? Thank you. Public heating is
closed.
Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Is there...we have a motion by Wilburn; seconded by Champion. That
motion is to give them the option of either the $1500.000 penalty, or the
thirty (30) day suspension. Okay. Discussion? Roll call.
Kart: Motion to accept correspondence?
Bailey: So moved.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: A 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 August 2, 2005.
#7 Page 52
ITEM 7 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME
LOCATED AT 2537 WHISPERING PRAIRIE AVENUE TO A
PUBLIC HOUSING PROGRAM TENANT.
a) PUBLIC HEARING
Lehman: Public hearing is open. Public hearing is closed.
b) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
Vanderhoef: Move the resolution.
Champion: Move the resolution.
· Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Champion: That's one of the good things we do.
Lehman: Yes, it's wonderful. Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#9 Page 53
ITEM 9 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 ENTITLED
"CITY FINANCES, TAXATION & FEES," CHAPTER 4,
"SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND
PENALTIES" SECTION 7, "PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION" TO
INCLUDE SPECIAL FARES, SPECIAL PASSES AND CHARGES
FOR BICYCLE LOCKERS (FIRST CONSIDERATION).
Bailey: Move first consideration.
Wilburn: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Bailey; seconded by Wilburn. Discussion?
Bailey: How will we advertise the availability of bike lockers, which is a great
thing.
Atkins: I don't know. Have to figure out some way to do that.
Bailey: When will they be available?
Atkins: I think almost immediately. Very soon, yeah.
Vanderhoef: We talked about them at the Chamber today, so they have first noise about
it at least.
Bailey: Good, need to get the word out.
Atkins: We'll get the word out.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#10 Page 54
ITEM 10 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9 ENTITLED
"MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC", CHAPTER 7 ENTITLED
"VEHICLE SIZE, WEIGHT AND LOAD", TO RESTRICT LARGE
TRUCK TRAFFIC ON COURT STREET FROM THE
INTERSECTION OF SUMMIT STREET TO THE INTERSECTION
OF MUSCATINE AVENUE (FIRST CONSIDERATION).
O'Donnell: Move first consideration.
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell; seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Bailey: And when will we be checking on this, to see if it helps?
Lehman: Well, we have to have three considerations, and my suspicion is...
Atkins: Oh, you mean follow-up reports? We'll start, in fact we've already done
traffic enforcement, and I just haven't seen the memo on it yet.
Bailey: Great.
Vanderhoef: If there are no objections at the next meeting, I would consider expediting
this one too.
Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#13 Page 55
ITEM 13 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING, AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY
CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY AND ANDERSON-BOGERT ENGINEERS
AND SURVEYORS, INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING
CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE GILBERT/PRENTISS/
BOWERY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
Champion: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion; seconded by O'Donnell.
Bailey: I know that this is motivated primarily by car traffic, but I assume the
consultant will also look at pedestrian/bicycle, because it's horrible to ride
a bike through that intersection.
Lehman: That's horrible for any kind of traffic.
Bailey: And pedestrian, I think that that would be very difficult as well.
Lehman: I would agree. Roll call.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#15 Page 56
ITEM 15 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT
OF SAMUEL E. HARGADINE AS POLICE CHIEF IN IOWEA
CITY, IA.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell; seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Vanderhoefi I would just like to say welcome to our community, and I was very
impressed with Sam last night, how he handled the questions for the
community, and I hope everyone gets an opportunity to meet him soon.
Lehman: Steve, I'd like to thank you and your folks for the due diligence and work
that you went through in screening. I'm sure you had a ton of folks and a
tough decision, and thank you very much.
Atkins: Sitting in the audience is Lyra Dickerson who's chair of our Civil Service
Commission, and one of the things that folks don't know, he gives up
professional responsibilities to come and participate in two days worth of
interviews, those are nice things for citizens to participate in for us.
Lehman: I think it was a great process, and we certainly thank you.
Bailey: I just want to comment that I can't support this resolution, and as the old
saying goes, it's not personal. This is fundamentally business. I didn't
think that the process, once it got to the Council level, allowed for the kind
of input or process that I believe the Charter Commission really wanted to
see. I thought at the Council level we needed to really have a value-added
process, and I was very disappointed that public did not have the
opportunity to interact with Mr. Hargadine, and it was extremely
disappointing that he could answer questions from the media, the news
media, but he could not answer questions from the citizens, his ultimate
employers. So, I, nothing personal against anybody who was involved
with this process and certainly nothing personal to Mr. Hargadine, but I
won't be supporting this resolution. I think the process, we let down the
citizens of Iowa City with this process, and I hope that next time we do a
better job.
Lehman: Regenia, I would just have to say that this is precisely in accordance with
the Charter, and approved by the Commission, which we had to review
that.
Bailey: I understand that we have different interpretations.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#15 Page 57
Lehman: Well, I mean, it has even a section in the Charter Review Committee's
report where they considered having public input, and they decided not to
do it.
Bailey: And I wasn't asking for public input at any point. I was asking for an
opportunity for a very competent person to answer questions from the
citizenry, and he would have handled it well, I believe, and I don't think it
would have been a grilling. I think that we generally have a pretty good
process in this community, but these are the people he will be serving.
Probably by the end of this month, and he did not have the opportunity to
meet them. I think we let him down, and I certainly believe we let the
community down, and as I said, it's nothing personal. I think he did do a
good job of answering questions last night, and I think that the process up
to the Council point was handled very admirably.
Elliott: I agree with what Regenia has just said. I would like to make two
additional. I noticed the letter to the editor that, because I agree, that to
me there is no right or wrong. There are ways you think are the best, most
effective, and productive ways of doing things (TAPE ENDS) was not
public participation at the end, and that has nothing to do with the Charter.
I just think that at the very least, that there should be, that the public
should have been able to ask questions and have them answered, and that
the Council would make it decision whether or not to approve based at
least at some point on that. However, I was going to say I saw, I believe, a
letter to the editor where they said something about the City Manager's
process. This is the Council which determined that this process would not
be open to that extent; not the City Manager. If so, if there is anyone who
dislikes it, they have the Council to complain to, not the City Manager
because he would do it if we wanted him to. Secondly, while I think the
process was flawed, I think that the selection made has been a good one,
and I am not willing to throw over a good selection because I disagree
with the process, so I will be voting to approve on this, but I think, I feel
very strongly that if and when this happens again, with the police chief
because it is a very unique, strike very, it is a unique position within the
City that there should have been an opportunity for public, not public to
vote, but public to ask questions and have them answered. I have now had
my say.
Lehman: Now, the Council has had their say. Roll call. The motion carries 6 to 1;
Bailey voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#18 Page58
ITEM 18 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Lehman: Bob?
Elliott: No, I just, Steve, give our thanks to Karin who did some heavy lifting
tonight on... she earned her money.
Lehman: Connie?
Champion: Well, I'll be enjoying Family Month next week. (laughter)
Lehman: Mike?
O'Donnell: I just wanted to welcome the Chief to Iowa City, and thank everybody
involved. Steve, that was a wise decision. I was impressed with him last
night. The process was followed to the letter, and I appreciate the efforts
made. Also, one question, Steve. A while back we talked about a house
on Westminster.
Atkins: 157...it's on my follow-up for this week. I'll let you know.
O'Donnell: Thank you. That's all I have.
Lehman: Dee?
Vanderhoef: I just want to remind Council that tomorrow night in Waterloo, 225
Commercial Street, there will be the number three of five Iowa League of
Cities Legislative forums and gatherings. So, these will be legislators
from northeast Iowa and north-central Iowa. We may even have some of
ours. I did attend one last week in Ottumwa, and found it very
enlightening. The legislators are already gearing up. They were willing to
listen to the folks around the table, and they were represented. We had
Eldridge, Davenport, Bettendorf, Burlington, Oskaloosa, Fort Madison, all
those folks in there. So, there were a number of legislators there and
certainly they gave recognition to the Iowa League and the work that
they've been doing at State Legislator, so if you have a chance, I have the
map. If anybody wants to go with me, give me a call and we'll go meet a
different group of legislators tomorrow night.
Wilbum: Just wanted to personally thank the Mayor for helping the Crisis Center
celebrate 35 years of existence. Two of the founders of the Crisis Center
showed up, and there were proclamations from the City and the Iowa State
Senate and all over the place. Also, thank President Skorton for his kind
words about the Crisis Center.
Elliott: Ross, who was playing guitar and singing when I was there?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
#18 Page59
Wilbum: That was someone from the band "Dogs on Skies."
Elliott: Dogs on Skies - I liked it.
Vanderhoef: Who were the founders?
Wilbum: Um, they were four University students who got the Crisis Center rolling,
and worked with Verne Kelley, she used to be the Director of the Mental
Health Center at the time, to get the Crisis Center rolling. He wrote a
grant to help them get some funds. One of them is, the first Executive
Director, is Howard Weinberg, a practicing psychologist in town, but there
was an interesting insert in the newspaper last week that, if you didn't get
the chance, maybe contact the Press-Citizen to see if you can see it.
There's a fun photo of some interesting hair-dos back then. (laughter)
Yeah, I did have hair then! I didn't think about that. (laughter)
Lehman: Regenia?
Bailey: I just wanted to pass on something that I heard at break. A citizen came
up and expressed much appreciation for the garbage collectors in her
neighborhood. She said there are a lot of seniors in the neighborhood and
they very carefully replace the cans close enough to the sidewalk that they
don't blow into the alley, and so I just wanted to pass that along and make
sure that they heard that. I know this is a busy time of year for them. So,
they are appreciated!
ITEM 19 ITEMS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
Lehman: Steve?
Atkins: Two quick things: House Senate Conference Committee has approved $5
million for the McCollister Bridge, about 98% is on its way, so keep your
fingers crossed. I informed the University and they're in the process of
wrapping up their appraisals, and hopefully we'll get to them very shortly.
And secondly, for just a heads-up, I'd like the first meeting in September,
I told you last night I'd start to put together kind of a schedule, and I'd like
to do that first meeting September, budget priorities, just begin thinking
about it. I'll try to put out a summary to get us started, but I think you
could do that - the sooner the better for me.
Lehman: Okay. Eleanor? Marian? Do we have a motion to adjourn?
Bailey: So moved.
O'Donnell: Second.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.
# 18 Page 60
Lehman: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Motion carries. We are
adjourned.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 2, 2005.