Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-16 Transcription#3 Page 1 ITEM 3 COMMUNITY COMMENT. Lehman: This is the time reserved on the agenda for folks to address the Council on issues that do not otherwise appear on our agenda. If you wish to address the Council, please sign in; limit your comments to five minutes or less. Honohan: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm Jay Honohan. I'm a member of the Senior Center Commission, and, Marian, did you pass those out yet? Karr: Yes, I did. Honohan: I thought you didn't have enough paperwork, so I thought I'd give you a short report and a little bit of documents. The first sheet, you can disregard if you've got numbers on these. That was what I did to make sure I had enough copies for everybody. The first sheet, we're kind of pleased with, shows that the membership of the participants of the Senior Center has increased from fiscal year 04 to...of 820, to fiscal year 05 of 933, and this, of course, is in spite of the fact that we loose members, both because they're deceased, and also because some move out of town. In fact, we had one lady and her husband join the Peace Corps on us, so they're no longer members, but we're quite pleased, and we also gave you a breakdown there, it shows the Iowa City residents, incorporated Johnson County, and rural Johnson County, and outside Johnson County. In case I haven't told you before, we even have people from Grinnell that come to play in the band at the Senior Center. The second sheet shows the...it's a summary of, Linda doesn't like it when I call it the "hits" at the Senior Center, but this is the number of people who come to the Senior Center. This is not, you know, like I come three or four times a week. I'm included in that three or four times. It's not separate people, but you can see by that sheet, that from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 05, we've increased the number of participants at the Center to 55,612. This does not include people that come to special events who are not participants of the Center. For instance, on Veterans Day we have a large group of people that come for that event, and so that number is actually greater than what appears on this sheet. You notice the total of fiscal year 05, on the right-hand column, is down considerably, but if you look at where that occurs, that's in senior dining, and senior dining is following a national trend, and I've got that, I show you that, on the next sheet, which shows you that the on-site has dropped about $10,000 .... er, 10,000 people from fiscal year 02 to fiscal year 05, but the home-delivered has increased from 48,400 to 90,908. This is, as I told you, this is a national trend that we are seeing that more people are not coming to the sites like the Senior Center, but they are getting home-delivered meals, and you notice we're also, this...our site, the Senior Center, is delivering meals to Johnson County, and even to Iowa County and Washington County, and we're a little concerned about the use of the facilities and the equipment at this time, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #3 Page 2 and we discussed at our meeting today, meeting with Elder Services about who has to pay for the equipment in the dining area. I'm talking about the dishwashers, and things like that, because there seems to be a high mortality rate on that kind of equipment in senior dining, and most of the time they're coming to us and asking us to fix it, and absorb the cost, and we're concerned that maybe, particularly when you look at the on-site is very small compared to the off-site now, that maybe the Senior Center, in our budget, should not be experiencing the cost that they would like us to absorb. Champion: Jay, do they, are they paying any utilities, like water or ... Honohan: Not right now. Champion: The Senior Center absorbs all that for all those counties? Honohan: That's right. We do that for the site, yes. Champion: Wow! Honohan: And, of course, we're also, that's the same thing though we have, although this is considerably more, of course, but the VNA doesn't pay, AARP doesn't pay, the Task Force doesn't pay; anybody that we lease space to that serves the seniors, we don't charge them at this time, and we considered that at one time a couple of years ago, and then walked away from it. We did not. The last sheet, I think, is something very special that we're going to work with, and the "Care for the Caregiver" lecture series. That's going to be in September and October of this year. It's in cooperation with the University of Iowa, the University Hospitals, the Iowa State University Extension, Hospice, and Elder Services, and these are going to be evening programs, and we have speakers. There's going to be discussion, and we think that's going to be very important series of events, and we hope to be well attended. Finally, I have one little item, and I'll get out of here, and that is our quilt raffle this year. We raised $2,416 and a lady whose name I must mention, Rose Hanson, sold $420 worth of chances. This is about $1,000 more than we've ever made before on our quilt raffle, and a lady who was visiting with her relatives here in Iowa City at the County Fair, she won it, and she's from Sioux City. We're still trying to figure out how to deliver it to her. Thank you very much. If there's any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them. Lehman: You didn't draw my number, right? Honohan: That's right. They didn't draw your number, Emie. Sorry about that. Lehman: No you're not! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #3 Page 3 Champion: You can bring it to me and I'll ship it to her. Honohan: Okay. Vanderhoef: When you're done with it? (laughter) Champion: Well, I wasn't going to say that! Karr: Motion to accept correspondence? Vanderhoef: So moved. Bailey: So moved. Lehman: Second? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Anybody else for Community Comment? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 4 ITEM 4 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. a) CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 92 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL (ID-RS) ZONE TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY - SENSITIVE ARES OVERLAY (OSA-5) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF KENNEDY PARKWAY AND EAST OF CAMP CARDINAL ROAD (REZ03-00019). 1. PUBLIC HEARING (continued from 8/2) Lehman: Public heating is open. Holland: Good evening. My name is Joe Holland. I'm here on behalf of the subdivider and developer of this project. I'm really pleased that we have tonight a signed Conditional Zoning Agreement. I want to thank Karin and Eleanor. They were very responsive in coming to agreement on some language that we can present to the Council tonight. I don't think the Council's probably had much of a chance to see this because, literally, it was just put together in final form in the last couple of hours, but the essential provisions deal, I think, with the sewer issue, which was a subject of some discussion at the last public hearing. The essential provisions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement are that my client, the subdivider, will extend two 8" sanitary sewer lines to the south line of the property, one to the Nepola property and one to the Ahrens' tract, which are the two parcels of land immediately south of Cardinal Ridge. The sewer lines are going to be as short as possible, that will provide feasible sanitary sewer service to those other properties.' The routes are going to be determined, essentially by the Public Works Department; we're going to have consultation with them since Southgate's going to be paying the cost of that, but the Public Works Department of the City is the party really best equipped to make those decisions in terms of the City's future needs. We've put in some timelines to try and have this agreed to, the routing of those lines, as soon as possible so that hopefully some field work can commence yet this fall. So, I'm really pleased that we came to an agreement. Obviously, it's a tough issue to work through, but I think everybody's shown a cooperative spirit in trying to bring that issue to a conclusion. The other issue deals with traffic issues, which have been raised by some area residents. That really, I don't think, has seen much change, although there's been some discussions since the last meeting, and I think it was what Karin described at the informal session last night that the proposed plat of lots, the 92 lots, will be built-out, but before there's any further development, platting of the outlots in Cardinal Ridge, that there'll be traffic analysis done to determine what the traffic burden is on the local collector streets. This has been a long process. The original filing of this plat was almost two years ago. It's been through a couple of Public Hearings in Planning and Zoning. It's been through now two This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 5 public hearings before the Council. It's been through innumerable discussions with City staff, both the Planning Department, the Legal Department, and even Public Works Department. We think that this is a project which is now ready for the Council to approve, and we hope you'll agree. If you have any questions about what we've accomplished with the agreement, I'll be happy to try and answer those. Thank you very much. Lehman: Thank you, Joe. Champion: Karin? Should I wait until after the Public Heating? Lehman: Part of the public hearing. Karin? Champion: It says that a traffic analysis will be done. What kind of guidelines do we have to decide whether the secondary access needs to be there? Franklin: Secondary access, we have a secondary access policy or secondary access guidelines, which addresses numbers of vehicle trips per day on a street. It addresses topography. It addresses special populations, such as the elderly or if there's an institutional use in the area. Whether there are any natural characteristics, such as a stream crossing or something that would potentially result in that being blocked, and that's all about the ability to get emergency vehicles in there. So those are all taken into consideration when we evaluate secondary access. Champion: Thank you. Elliott: You agree with this agreement that we have been provided? Franklin: Yes. Yeah. Elliott: Good. Lehman: It addresses the concerns, is what we're asking for, the agreement? Franklin: Right, I mean, I think the issue with us was primarily the sanitary sewer. I mean, our evaluation of the secondary access was that it was not required at this time. Lehman: Okay. Thank you. Gelman: I'm Tom Gelman. I'm here on behalf of the Walnut Ridge Owner's Association, and I would like to talk more about the secondary access issue. I appreciate your time, considering it so far. There is a provision now in the Conditional Zoning Agreement, I just looked at moments ago, that addresses it, but, and it's an improvement, but I don't, I think it still This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 6 misses some of the concerns, the safety concerns, that really relate to this property, and that are particular to this property. At the last meeting, Bob Elliott suggested that we talk to the developer, and through a less than adequate form of communication, exchanged voicemails. We did that. I communicated with Joe, and just nominally, but it was apparent through those communications that the developer did not wish to commit as to when Kennedy Parkway would be extended or another secondary access would be provided. There was no commitment as to the timeframe, and I think that's a critical issue here is the timeframe that we're dealing with. We all know that this is a temporary situation, but we don't know how temporary, and I think that's the principle concern. At the last meeting, one of you or maybe more asked the owners for a specific proposal as to the acceptable, as to an unacceptable standard for traffic, given the circumstances. On behalf of the Association, I tried to retain a professional engineering consultant, but given the short timeframe, it was not possible to get an expert or opinion during that period of time, but despite that, we are prepared to make a proposal tonight, which would be a way to, again, balance the concerns here. If you recall, the basic question is the adequacy of the infrastructure to support additional developments, specifically two questions: how much development should be permitted to occur on Kennedy Parkway before a secondary access is required before any further development will be permitted, okay? And then secondly, in using the City's guidelines, which were j ust...that, Connie, you just asked about, what standard should apply, in light of the specific circumstances and features of Kennedy Parkway? The answer to these questions somewhat varied, depending upon the history, and I want to give you a very brief history relating to this subdivision, as provided by the diligent homework of some of the owners in the area. In 1989, when Walnut Ridge was first being looked at, this subdivision access was an issue, and was a concern. Kennedy Parkway via Melrose Avenue is the only means of accessing this 160 acre, 104-lot subdivision. By adding Cardinal Ridge, it'll be a 260 acre, 192-1ot plus subdivision. In larger subdivisions, secondary access is needed for the safety and convenience of the residents of the development. While staff has maintained that secondary access should be provided within developments of 28 lots or more, that's an old standard no longer applicable. The City has, at times through the actions of the City Council, permitted subdivisions of greater size since secondary access can eventually be established, as development progresses across adjacent, undeveloped territory. This was back in 89. In other words, the City has tolerated a temporary, on a temporary basis, the risks involved with only one single means of access to a larger residential development. The preliminary plat of Walnut Ridge does provide for the extension of Kennedy Parkway, in the northern portion of the subdivision to the undeveloped tract west of the subject property. It is anticipated that as the tract west of Walnut Ridge is developed, a secondary means of access will be established via the extension of Kennedy Parkway and its intersection, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. //4 Page 7 to an improved and extended Camp Cardinal Road. Until the link is established, the low development density of the proposed subdivision lessens the risks associated with a singular means of access to a sizable tract of land, but what we're creating here is no longer a low-density subdivision. What we're doing here is we're adding, we're doubling the size of the subdivision and it no longer satisfies the requirements for a low-density subdivision. In a staff report dated December 16, 1993, to the Planning and Zoning Commission. This was when Walnut Ridge was half done, and now we were talking about the development of the remaining half, the northerly half. At the time that the initial plan was approved, secondary access for emergency vehicles was a concern. However, it was felt that given this type of development, it would be a number of years before the lots in the early phases would be developed and that secondary access via Camp Cardinal Road might be available, prior to or shortly after the development of the most northerly parts. The pace of the development for the first four phases of Walnut Ridge has...may have occurred at a faster rate than initially anticipated. The applicant is now seeking to amend the preliminary OPDH plan for parts 5 through 9, and is also seeking preliminary plat approval of parts 5 and 9. Staff is concerned that given the pace of development, and the unlikelihood of the near-term extension of Camp Cardinal Road, the issue of secondary access, especially for parts 6 through 9, should be given close scrutiny. We're talking about Walnut Ridge, not an additional subdivision. Since the approval of the previous OPDH plan, the City has developed criteria by which to review the issue of secondary access. When applied to this development, this criteria indicates that development may not be appropriate north of part 5 until a means of secondary access, which would occur in a reasonable time frame, can be identified. The secondary access policy states a secondary means of access may be required when there are physical features that would inhibit emergency vehicle access, if the single means of access were blocked. In this case, the development includes slopes in excess of 8 degrees and two culverted waterways south of part 5. The Fire Marshall's concern that given the situation there may be times when it would not be possible to provide emergency services to the portion of Walnut Ridge located north of part 5. It goes on to state, if the City and the applicant wish to expedite development of Walnut Ridge, extension and connection of Camp Cardinal Road to Walnut Ridge should be explored. If the applicant is not successful in acquiring a route for this connection through a private transaction, it may be appropriate for the City to consider the use of condemnation powers to acquire the need for a right-of-way. So at that point in time, staff was recommending the possibility of condemning a route before the second half of Walnut Ridge was developed, in anticipation of this development of Walnut Ridge. Finally, in 1997, in a memorandum of JeffDavidson to the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the design guidelines that we're talking about for secondary access. The guidelines use traffic volume, physical This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. //4 Page 8 features, pedestrian/motor vehicle conflicts, and special populations for gauging when secondary access should be required. The point here is that this has been a concern for a long time, that these issues have not gone away - they are now intensified dramatically by the doubling of this subdivision. Cardinal Ridge will essentially create a 6,550 foot cul-de- sac. Okay? That's 5,650 feet more than the 900 foot cul-de-sac requirements in our subdivision policy. It will constitute the most remote area in the City of Iowa City, be far, second only to the northerly reaches of Walnut Ridge. All the Cardinal Ridge traffic will be added to Kennedy until a secondary access is provided, and Kennedy was participated to be a low-volume street, not a large-volume street. The Fire Marshall previously, and currently, has concerns about using this as a single means of access for safety reasons. You've already been fully reminded on several occasions of the many design variances granted to the developer of Walnut Ridge in full anticipation of the low-traffic volume, while now we are going to be burdened with a higher traffic volume. We suspect that if Walnut Ridge had been built at a density of 200 lots, rather than at only 100, the design concessions would not have been made, and that what we're essentially doing is we're going to be establishing on a temporary basis a 200-lot subdivision using a single-access. So, it is imperative to reasonably limit, both in quantity and in time-frame, the negative impact on safety for Walnut Ridge, Cardinal Ridge, and all other members of the public. So, with that, here's a sheet which has a proposal on how that might be done. So, this is a sample proposal. This is how it might be done in, I think, a reasonable way, and again, it's balancing the interests of the developer and the interests of public safety. This proposal is only effective before sufficient secondary access is connected, and as you can see, at the bottom it says, 'Once a sufficient secondary access is connected, none of this would be applicable.' The first page lays out the proposal. The first paragraph basically says, rather than using a 2,500 vehicle count, it should be reduced because of the physical features and the unique properties of Kennedy Parkway, to be 75% of that requirement, or 1,875 vehicles per day. There's no point in using the 2,500 criteria. That's for the ideal situation, and I think all of us could agree pretty promptly that this is not the ideal situation, that this is less than ideal. Therefore, it constitutes...we're suggesting a reduction of that 2,500 vehicle count. Number one, 75% of the standard, rather than 100%. Number two, before each development phase, that an accurate traffic count be done. Number three, that there should be no additional development allowed if the traffic count indicates that the standard has been reached, or the likelihood that the standard will be reached, based upon the proposed development. And number four, sufficient secondary access is defined, an effort to define it, as either an extension and connection of Kennedy Parkway to the new Camp Cardinal Boulevard; an extension and connection of Kennedy Parkway to the old, but improved, Camp Cardinal Road, or such other connection as may develop, or may be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. Page 9 proposed, to another arterial street. The practical consequences of this proposal are on the second page, and what you see there, using the 1,875 vehicle standard, the most recent traffic count was 11.37 vehicles per household average. If you divide that into this 1,875 standard, what you'll see is that you would have, that this would support 164.91 residential lots. Walnut Ridge has 100 lots, 8 of those do not use Kennedy Parkway as its primary access. There would be 50 lots in phase 1 of Cardinal Ridge, according to the final plat that's been filed; there'd be 23 in phase 2 of Cardinal Ridge, according to the final plat that's been filed; bringing us exactly up to the 165 standard. So, what's the consequence of this proposal? It would potentially require a secondary access before development of phase 3, which has 19 additional lots; for outlots E and G, which have yet an undisclosed number of residential lots, or any other adjacent real estate in the area. We would very much appreciate your fullest consideration of that proposal as an alternate provision to the Conditional Zoning Agreement. I'd be happy to respond to questions, and I know there are some residents of Walnut Ridge who are also here who would be happy to respond or may have some things to say. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, Tom. Vanderhoef: Karin, refresh my memory on what typically we use for average vehicle trips per household when we're doing... Franklin: Seven. Vanderhoefi Seven. Okay. Wilbum: Karin? Part of the history that Mr. Gelman walked us through in terms of recommendations of staff, in terms of paying attention to secondary access, to me says that staff has tried to be .... stay aware of any problems that may come about. In the history that was walked through, have...has it been your experience that there have been problems that have occurred that would be problematic related to our secondary access policy? That's my first question. My second question is can you think of any areas where - any developments - where our secondary access guidelines have been inadequate in terms of addressing safety? And you can take whichever one of those first you'd like. In other words, we've got the policy... Franklin: When you say have there been any problems that are a consequence of our secondary access policy, I have to kind of translate that to given that we have approved developments in which there was not secondary access, has a direct consequence of that been that there has been a problem, either with emergency access, well with emergency access, or with the street being blocked off. I can think of none in which that has occurred. The other criteria that you would use to define "problem" would be traffic, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 10 because that's one of the things that is a reason for us even having a secondary access...secondary access policy. Its for emergency vehicle access, for safety; and then so the person or the residents that are at the very end of the street, that is the end that connects to the arterial or the collector, depending upon the situation, that that household does not experience an inordinate amount of traffic, given what the function of the street is. That's very subjective, and that's what we use that number for. Obviously, the Walnut Ridge people are telling you, as you have heard from many neighborhoods over time, as development occurs in the next piece, that there's too much traffic. So, I can't say unequivocally that there's no problem because a problem is identified often by people who live in an area as traffic...and so I can't stand here and say that there's absolutely no problem, but by the standards that we have set as a matter of policy, we being this Council, past Councils, have sat by the secondary access policy. There is not a problem as we define "problem." What was your second question? (laughter) Wilburn: I guess it gets towards, is our secondary, is it your opinion that staff feels our secondary access policy, our guidelines, are sufficient for giving us... Franklin: I think it gives us good guidance. It is guidance. So, that's when you're called upon to make some kind of a judgment. I mean, I would like to say in terms of the history that's been related by Tom, and I have not gone back and read all the old staff reports, but I don't believe that he said at any time there was a recommendation of denial because there was not sufficient secondary access. Wilburn: I guess that's what I was getting at. Franklin: We've always raised the concern, whenever we look at any subdivision that has one means of access. We look at that issue. We always raise it in a staff report if there is only one means of access, that it is something that needs to be looked at, and Walnut Ridge or Cardinal Ridge, they need...it needs to be looked at. And then you evaluate where you are. Cardinal Ridge is going to be a development of the same density as Walnut Ridge, one dwelling unit per acre. That's what we're talking about. It's clustered, but in terms of the number of units that are there, per the acres we have, it's the same density. Usually our developments are at about three dwelling units per acre, that's an RS-5. So... Wilburn: The other piece I'm looking at, and perhaps this is reflected in the guidelines, are related to collector streets. And I'm not trying to be insensitive to concerns with children, I have several...you know, I certainly have children of my own, but I'm looking at other areas where there's no new development, there are existing collector streets and there are children living along those. Will this create traffic.., more traffic This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 11 concerns than on existing collector streets, where there's no development going on? Franklin: Not by our evaluation with the numbers that we have and how we've applied the whole thing. Wilburn: Thank you. Elliott: Karin, I had just a couple questions. My understanding is the concerns of the residents of Walnut Ridge are twofold, for a secondary access. One would be more city-wide, the access of emergency vehicles to anything in there. Two is then their concern, and concern of all residents, of safety for the people, especially young people on that street. Though the situations are a lot different, does the Peninsula provide us any precedent in thinking about this when you come to secondary access? The Peninsula property. Franklin: The Peninsula... in the design of Foster Road, and it has some similarities. The design of Foster Road, which is designed as an arterial, the way we control access to it, and the density that was then allowed on the Peninsula, those two factors played into our ability to have Foster Road be a single means of access for that area. So the density if held down, and you cannot have driveways along Foster Road, and that is to maintain the capacity of Foster Road, likewise there is some parking on Foster Road. There is a similarity in Walnut Ridge in that the majority of houses in Walnut Ridge do not have direct driveway access to Kennedy Parkway. Some do, but they're primarily at the south end of the development. Most of the houses have access off the cul-de-sacs. So, it maintains capacity on that street for vehicular movement. Now, are there things that could be done on Kennedy Parkway to enhance it? Yes, there could be sidewalks put on both sides, which is, you know, something that is certainly conceivable to do. I understand that there is a covenant right now that prohibits parking on that street. One thing parking does on a street is constrain it and people tend to slow down when they feel constrained in the space. I'm not suggesting there be parking put on Kennedy Parkway, but I'm saying there are things that can be looked at there, and sidewalks are certainly one that could be addressed. Elliott: Thanks, and just in response, when I grew up in the city where I grew up, I was much more concerned about people driving down a street where there was parking, as opposed to driving down a street where there's a wide- open expanse and you can see, and it seems to me that the absence of parking adds to the safety, especially of young people, because of the driver - you get the whole open expanse. That was just an observation. Franklin: Anything else? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 12 Lehman: One...I have one question. The Conditional Zoning Agreement specifically says that there will be an analysis of traffic prior to any developments of lots E and G, using the City's secondary access guidelines. Now, do...I believe this is correct, but does the City's secondary access guidelines take into consideration such things as topography, percent of grade .... so, it would be reasonable to assume that a 2,500 car per day norm for a collector street would be reduced somewhat, using our guidelines? Franklin: In talking about reducing that number, and Tom and I talked about this earlier, it's a little bit confusing. You look at the number, and the number is not the only thing that you look at. All of these guidelines are items that you look at to make an evaluation, to make a judgment. The number is one of them. Now, whether you argue then that for some particular area because of topography you take that number down, I...it seems rather arbitrary. Lehman: Not necessarily. Franklin: Do you consider the need for secondary access because there are topographical issues? Yes. Are those topographical issues ones which may result in a blockage of that street? That's the question. Lehman: And those are the things you would consider when evaluating further development? Franklin: Yes. Lehman: Okay, that's...anything else for Karin? Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. Champion: What is the speed limit on that street? Twenty-five? Bailey: I wanted to pull off on something Karin mentioned about sidewalks, and ask the neighborhood, what have you discussed about putting sidewalks in? Because !'m certainly supportive of pedestrian-friendly areas, and that certainly increases safety if there are sidewalks on both sides of the street. What's been discussed in regard to that? Mr. Gelman? I mean, I don't know if you...that has even come up, but it seems like that would increase pedestrian safety. Gelman: All alternatives, I think, related to pedestrian safety have been considered and been discussed somewhat. Bailey: Uh-huh. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 13 Gelman: The decision was made when Walnut Ridge was submitted and improved not to do that. Bailey: Right. Gelman: City staff, and the City staff reports...in fact one of them I read from... Bailey: Right, I'm aware of that. Gelman: Their recommendation was, in fact, particularly for the second half of the subdivision, to put sidewalks on both sides of Kennedy Parkway, and to put sidewalks on one side of the local streets, and both of those recommendations to the staff were ignored by Planning and Zoning Committee, and/or City Council. I'm not sure which. It was not done. Bailey: Right. Gelman: So, City staff has before thought sidewalks were...but, you know, the discovering body in earlier versions of it decided not to do that. The need for sidewalks is maybe always there, but it is much, much less when in fact this is, and has the character of, a rural subdivision, which is what Walnut Ridge was intended to emulate, was a county subdivision with very limited density and therefore, one sidewalk was thought to be enough. The problem here is, for a temporary basis where we're now compounding, which is taking less of the character of a rural subdivision, we are now compounding the traffic and we don't have the sidewalk, and the question is do we add it now for a temporary reason? I don't know, and I don't know also whether that's the best traffic-calming measures to be used or the best solution. Another way to address it would be...so, so it's possible, but then the question is 'who should bear that expense?' Bailey: And neighborhoods have the options of looking at those kinds of things, and it seems that if safety is a concern, sidewalks seem to be a reasonable approach... Gelman: I don't disagree...I mean, I agree 100%, but then the question becomes who should bear that cost. I mean, this City Council approved this subdivision in the past without those sidewalks, a prior version of this Council .... Bailey: Right, not this... Gelman: ...but this Council may authorize this level of additional traffic on Kennedy Parkway without a secondary access, in spite of the fact that that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 14 was never anticipated. So, then the question becomes 'who bears that cost.'?' Champion: · Well, the homeowner always bears the cost of sidewalks. Always. Ifa developer does it, they certainly pass it on to the people who are buying the house. Gelman: Right, but the City has installed sidewalks at its expense in other locations in the City. Lehman: Rarely. Vanderhoefi Very rarely. Gelman: So, that's the question. I mean, clearly if in fact the traffic is a problem, as it is anticipated to be, I'm sure that the homeowners will be back to the City Council, asking some traffic-calming measures, anything that would be reasonable, and I'm sure they'll be further exploring the issue of sidewalks, but I think...I'm not sure that the decision ultimately was a mistake that this Council... er, made, because of the intended nature of this area. What we've doing is we're changing it on a temporary basis, and then when that secondary access is going through, we'll have a different situation, which may no longer require the sidewalk. Lehman: Tom, I think that this is not a temporary change. I think that once this subdivision is built, that road is going to be used regularly by large numbers of cars. Now, certainly when a secondary access if available, people have the opportunity to have a different way in or out, but once this subdivision is built, Kennedy Parkway is going to be a much busier street, and will continue to be from that point on. Gelman: Yeah, I don't know, Ernie, I'm not sure whether that's going to be the case. Lehman: I'm not sure, but I would bet on it. Gelman: There clearly will be a through access, but it is not the arterial. I mean, you know... Lehman: No, it's a collector. Gelman: That's right. Cardinal Road...I mean Camp Cardinal Boulevard, the new street, which will be just a quarter mile west of there, is the intended arterial. It is the mechanism for people to get between Coralville and Iowa City, between Highway 6 and Melrose. That street will have a lot of traffic, and so I don't know if the traffic will be increased, or the traffic This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 15 will be lessened, when there is in fact a secondary access. Depends who uses it, and will people use it to go through, or will it just be for local access? Lehman: The secondary access will definitely help. Gelman: There's no question. Lehman: Okay. Champion: Well, I really appreciate the proposal that the neighborhood has given us. I do, however, think there are other considerations that are given, it's not just the number of cars. I think...I can't say that word... Lehman: Topography? Champion: ...the lay of the land, the lay of the road (laughter) certainly is taken into consideration, and I understand the frustration of the neighborhood because it really is nice and quiet now, and there's not much traffic. I haven't really decided what to do about this. Vanderhoef: I've looked at... Lehman: Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak to this? Dilkes: Are you going to close the Public Hearing? Lehman: Not as long as we have someone speaking. That's my intent is to close the Public Hearing. Dilkes: You need to make sure that...that means that the CZA is acceptable to you. Lehman: Do we need a motion to that effect? Dilkes: No. You can just poll yourselves and see, but I'm just reminding you that... Lehman: Thank you, thank you. Wilson: Good evening, Council Members. My name is Robert Wilson and I represent the owners of the Nepola tract, and visited with you two weeks ago about the sewer issue. I'd like to echo Joe's comments about how well the staff is...how appreciative I am of the staff in the last ten days in getting up to speed on this issue. I've reviewed the CZA agreement. If you'll permit me just one question of Council. As some of you may know, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page l6 we had an engineer take a look at the property, and we provided our own input and our own thoughts where we thought the sewer line ought to go and whether it was necessary. My only point is we kind of provided that engineering expertise to the City, and I know our engineer has talked to the City's engineer. My only question is, what rule if any, Council, do the southern boundary owners have in terms of the location of the lines that the developer has agreed to, to place, and maybe all I'm looking for here is, are you going to send us a copy of that, or do we have any rule in that at all? Dilkes: Send you a copy of what? Wilson: Of what you all agreed to. Dilkes: Oh, sure, that'll be a matter of public record. That'll be on the plat, on the final plat. I guess what I would say, we certainly will take any information we're provided and Engineering will take a look at that, but I think our ordinance does not provide for direct input, or agreement, by the adjacent property owners, and this agreement provides that there must be agreement by the developer and the, essentially, the Public Works Department. Lehman: Right. Wilson: And I'm not disagreeing with you. I just wondered if we might find out what you all decide at some point. Dilkes: Sure. Wilson: Okay, good. Lehman: In fact, by the terms of the CZA, you would know by the first of October. Is it October? There is a date... Dilkes: I think the thinking is that if we...well, Engineering and the developer will take a look at it and try to get it done prior to the approval of preliminary plat. That's going to come up pretty quickly. If that doesn't happen, the idea is that it will be done at the time of the approval of the final plat. Wilson: Thank you. That's all I have, and again, I appreciate your help, Council, and also Karin's help the last two weeks. Thank you, folks. Lehman: Thank you. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence, as well, before you close. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 17 Lehman: Do we have a motion to accept correspondence? O'Donnell: So moved. Wilburn: Second. Lehman: All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Prior to closing the Public Heating, is there consensus on the Council relative to the new CZA? This heating is relative to this CZA, which is different than we started with. Elliott: I'm concerned in my mind, I'm not...I don't have down the numbers in my mind clearly. The difference between what Tom provided, and the agreement that was signed late this afternoon. Lehman: I don't think there's any way of determining those numbers. Elliott: I think I'm going to be in favor of the agreement, but I wish I had a clearer understanding of what their differences are. Lehman: I think we all wish we had that understanding, but is Council at some level of comfort... Champion: I do think .... I do think the secondary access is a problem. I don't know about reducing a number. I would hope that we would take other things into consideration, and that's...I mean, I know the staff we have right now will, but I worry what's going to happen, how long this development's going to take. This street would qualify for traffic calming? Vanderhoef: No. Lehman: No. It's a collector. Champion: It would? Franklin: It...a collector qualifies for traffic calming; arterials do not. Champion: Okay. So, the neighborhood could come to the Council, or write an email, to look at traffic calming. So, I guess I'll support it for that reason. I do think there are measures that can be done on that street, if the traffic becomes fast, which I think is a concern. It's easy to go fast on that road. (TAPE ENDS) O'Donnell: I'm going to support it. I share Connie's concerns about traffic and I'm sure we'll make all attempts to make it as safe as we possibly can. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 18 Vanderhoefi I'm going to support this, and I am aware of the sidewalk issue, but another issue that I would hope that the Walnut Ridge folks will take a look at that might be an alternative to the additional sidewalks is that original trail plan that was put onto the original design, but has never been built, and is that a better way to move internal traffic of the children and the people who live there, and certainly for future uses of getting to the neighborhood and to the schools, that the children may choose to use. So, just take a look at it, please. Lehman: I'm going to close the Public Hearing. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) (DEFERRED FROM 8/2) Lehman: I'll consider a motion for first consideration. Vanderhoef: Move first consideration. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Bailey: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Bailey. Now, discussion? Elliott: I have just a couple observations. I'm, I think I'm going to vote for this agreement. I will be here for two more years, and certainly I will be receptive to any problems that, problems and concerns, that develop on that road in question, and I'm sure City staff and the Commission will be also. Secondly, I hope we learn from this, that there is virtually no development that can occur in a city like Iowa City and consider itself to be independent of things that happen to the east, west, north, and south. That is just not a reality to think that that development was going to be a stand-alone rural development. We have found that all too well. Thirdly, I'll add one on, ! think this is the most poorly equipped body to respond to this question and concern, but it's our question to answer to, and I will do that and I will vote for the agreement. Bailey: I'i1 be supporting this. I'm certainly not indifferent to concerns about traffic, and I think that this indicates that whenever we look at new developments that we have to, regardless of what character we're trying to establish, sidewalks are absolutely critical for pedestrians, and this was an oversight, and I think that we should consider trail and sidewalk access in this neighborhood, not because it would be, not for a temporary fix, but because sidewalks are always a good thing and always a safety measure. I think this traffic analysis prior to the development of outlots E and G will This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. //4 Page 19 give us some level of indication about the secondary access requirements. So, and I'm delighted to see that we have addressed the sewer issue. Wilbum: The only part that I would add on to what your's...the traffic analysis will be further indications of impacts of traffic, and not because there has already been an assessment about the other features of the area. So, I too will be supporting it. Lehman: Well, I'm going to support this, as well. It reminds me, in many respects, of First Avenue, which we dealt with here a number of years ago. First Avenue was always intended to be an arterial, was always intended to be contingent. I think this, Kennedy Parkway, er...as always intended to be a street that went somewhere, not just into a cul-de-sac. Unfortunately, I believe, the City agreed with the owners and the developer at the time and built that without sidewalks. I totally agree with Regenia. The sidewalks absolutely should have been required. At this point in time, my suspicion is that if sidewalks are installed, they will be installed at the, with the owner's or neighborhood's expense. There is going to be more traffic. I am, I really believe in the ability of our staff and our engineering and traffic codes to keep a good eye on this, and do what we can to make that road as safe as we possibly can. However, I also believe that that road is going to be carrying significantly more cars than it does now, and it will continue to do that for as long as there are houses out there. Elliott: May I have one more? Lehman: Please. Elliott: On a purely personal basis, two people have had input to me, and I'm disappointing them both. One was a conversation of a woman I don't know, but I had the most pleasant conversation with her, and she was reasonable, she was personable, and I wish that I could vote differently but I don't believe I can. The second is a close friend with whom I've lived for almost 50 years who said it would be a crime to put all this traffic on that street when she and I rode over the street, but I don't think there's an alternative. So... Lehman: I have an apartment available. (laughter) Elliott: As the President would say, with a heavy heart, I will do it. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 20 ITEM 4 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. b) CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.19 ACRES FROM INTENSIVE COMERCIAL (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 (continued from 8/2) Lehman: Public heating is open. Holland: Thank you. At the last Council meeting, we indicated a general agreement on a Conditional Zoning Agreement that was in place at that time, and after that Council meeting, we had an opportunity to get some input from the architect who did the concept plan for the proposal for this property; provided those to Karin and we reached an agreement, I think, which satisfies everyone, as far as materials, and I think that was the only lingering issue that divided the staff from the developer. So, I think now we have an agreement that will provide a project that's an asset to the City, and an asset to the area, and we'd ask you to approve this tonight. Lehman: Joe, let me...I need...if in fact there's a financial institution that requires an exit onto the street, you will be giving the City an additional strip of property of whatever size... I'm not, how much is it? Holland: Well, there will be additional right-of-way...I believe it's 10 feet on Conklin Lane, which is on the west side of the property, but also additional fight-of-way for Dodge Street Court so that can be improved. Lehman: Are both of those conditional on whether or not there's a financial institution located there? Holland: They are. Dilkes: No, just the Conklin Lane. Holland: Well, the Conklin Lane is. The other one is conditional upon whether there's any access off of Dodge Street Court. And, if... Lehman: I need, wait a minute...I have, okay, that's fine. Holland: The concept shows two accesses; one...I shouldn't say accesses. An exit for a financial institution, and an entry for the residential property near the east end of the property. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 21 Lehman: Right. Holland: And, if there is no financial institution, there's going to be an evaluation of whether to bring all the traffic in and off of Dodge Street, and not use Dodge Street Court at all. Under those circumstances, there will be additional right-of-way dedicated in any event, but there may not be participation in the cost of improving it, if we're not using it, but there's extra right-of-way for Dodge Street Court under any set of circumstances. Lehman: Okay, all right.. Holland: It's a question of contributions. So I misspoke earlier. The Conklin Lane is conditioned on the exit for the financial institution. Lehman: Okay. Holland: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Lehman: Thank you. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence? Vanderhoef: So moved. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Public hearing is closed. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) (DEFERRED FROM 8/2) Lehman: Do we have a motion? Champion: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Champion. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell for first consideration. Discussion? Champion: I think it's going to be a real asset to that area. Lehman: I'm sorry? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 22 MacVay: My name is Alan MacVay. I live on Conklin Lane. I've attended the other Planning and Zoning heatings, but I was out of town for the previous one of these meetings. I'm a little surprised to hear that there seems to be agreement with the Planning Commission, er, the Planning Office and the developer, on everything now, because there are two things, as I understand it, are not agreed upon, and certainly the residents of the area unanimously feel this way. One is that the drainage is a potential problem. It...as I understand it, it may be a problem or it may not. If it is, it's not going to affect me personally, but it's going to affect property owners at the end of Dodge Street Court, and it shouldn't. It's pretty simple. And, if it does, it seems to me that this body ought to say, 'If it does affect them, if it gets worse, that something ought to be done about it at that time.' If it doesn't get worse, no problem. Lehman: I asked about that two weeks ago. I understand that all of the drainage from this project must be diverted to Dodge Street. We did ask that. MacVay: What I'm responding to comes from a conversation I had yesterday with Bob Miklo and I may be interpreting it incorrectly, but, so anyway, that's what he said, and I don't know you, but you would be able to speak to that. That's a big concern because one of the neighbors upon whom this will have a major affect is in a wheelchair, and she's...this should not happen to her property. Champion: We agree. O'Donnell: That was our concern, and we did ask that. I think everybody here asked that question. MacVay: Great. So if we're in agreement that, you know, if there's a problem, it'll get fixed, I'm okay with that. The second thing is the exit from the bank, if there is an exit from the bank, which the Planning staffconcluded, I don't have the figures in front of me, but concluded that there is a significant amount of traffic that's going to come out of that bank probably. It's going directly into, headed towards a house that is a residential house. It's going right onto a tiny little street. Our street. And I hope I'm not speaking out of turn. As I understand it from people who know, that this can be fixed with the loss of three or four parking places. That's all. You know, I can understand why the developer doesn't want to do that, but I can understand why we want him to. And as simple as that. And we think, and I know I speak for every single person in this neighborhood, that that's what should happen. There were eleven people who wrote to this Council, and submitting those petitions, of whom four were just outside the 200 foot boundary. I would be outside of the 200 foot boundary except I own a little piece of that right there, across it, and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 23 we all care about this. So, those are the two issues. In my mind they're certainly not reconciled, if you decide, you'll decide whatever you decide, but I think that the traffic with that little bank thing is a real issue for a tiny little residential street, and I don't know how often you have put a commercial outlet into an existing residential neighborhood. I bet ya, not very often. That's all. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Council discussion? Champion: Can we address that a little bit? Bailey: ! don't understand about the parking thing. (several talking at once) Can you clarify that for me? I'm sorry, Karin. Franklin: Well, I think probably the number of spaces is off a tad, but I think what Mr. MacVay is saying is that the site could be redesigned to incorporate all of the commercial activity on the commercial site with no access to north Dodge Street Court. If you did.., if that were required, however, it would mean a reconfiguration of this project, such that a number of parking spaces would be lost. Bailey: For the financial institution? Franklin: For the whole project. Bailey: Okay, for both. Lehman: Do we have any estimate, questimate, the number of vehicles that will be exiting the financial institution, such that...that's not a general...I beg your pardon? Bailey: We did mention that last time. Lehman: But it's not a general exit for the whole area; it's for the bank. Franklin: No, it is an exit only for the drive-through lanes for financial institution. If there's not a financial institution, there will be no commercial access to north Dodge Street Court. There will be access to north Dodge Street Court for the apartment, but that was not at issue. What was at issue was the commercial access, and so the restriction that the Planning and Zoning Commission placed on this was that that exit only could only be for a financial institution, no other kind of drive-through, and that if it were not a financial institution, there would be no commercial access to north Dodge Street Court. Just by the way, for this drive-through to be approved, it also has to go through the Board of Adjustments. So, I think what Mr. MacVay is saying is that the site could be redesigned, such that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. Page 24 it could all be contained within the commercial space, and everything would exit out to Dodge Street, but the consequence of that is that there would be loss of parking, potentially loss of square footage, for the commercial development. Lehman: Thank you. Champion: And are there...what about the street? Is that going to be improved at all? Franklin: The street...ifthere are access points to north Dodge Street Court, okay? There is a financial institution; there is access for the apartments. Then, north Dodge Street Court would be improved, from Conklin Lane to the east property line of the Southgate property. We'd have to taper it then down to meet the chip seal that exists. All of the drainage from the commercial development would be taken out to Dodge Street. So, what we would have in terms of any additional run-off, would be whatever came off of the paving of north Dodge Street Court. When we talked about this at the work session, I raised the issue that if that section of north Dodge Street Court were going to be done, that it may be a time to look at the entire improvement of north Dodge Street Court, all the way to the end, and then dealing with the existing storm sewer, or drainage issue, that is there for the house that sits...it's at the end of north Dodge Street Court, and sits down from the level of the road. That's why it's getting water. That that would be an option for the Council to do a public project at that point. If there's no access to north Dodge Street Court, we won't be improving north Dodge Street Court at this time, but we will get the right- of-way. Champion: So, if there is access, the north Dodge Court, the road would have to be improved? Franklin: Yes. To the boundary of the project (several talking at once), and the cost would be shared between the City and the developer. Champion: So, then that would create more drainage. The street, a paved street. Franklin: To some increment, but we don't know what it would be in terms of whether it would exacerbate it at the end of north Dodge Street Court. I mean, we would have storm sewers in the street. That would be part of the construction. Lehman: Are there storm sewers on the street now? Franklin: No. Lehman: Well, then there would be less run-off than there is now, probably. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #4 Page 25 Franklin: I think until we would do a complete analysis, I can't say that, and, I mean, the ideal would be that the entire street was improved, storm sewer was put in, that stormwater was directed to an area where it could get into the natural drainage system that goes down through Hickory Hill Park. That would be the ideal. Champion: Right. Lehman: Okay. Champion: And that's what may have to be done if we pave that street. Franklin: It may. Okay? Bailey: I found a new word for exiting. Based upon the ten-hour business day, the staff looked at 380 to 500 exiting vehicles per day. There's a..."Transportation Engineer Trip Generation" manual has it much higher. 186 to 1,233... Champion: But that's for the whole area. Bailey: No, but that's the general, the national standard. Locally, it looks like it ranges from 380 to 580. Lehman: That's for a bank? Bailey: A bank. Lehman: Okay. Champion: Banks are open ten hours a day? Where? Bailey: I don't know. But it might have an ATM, a drive-through ATM. Lehman: Okay. Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. (BR~K) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #6 Page 26 ITEM 6 APPROVING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE JC DOGPAC DOG PARK PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. b. CONSIDERA RESOLUTION Lehman: Do we have a motion? Bailey: So moved. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Moved by Bailey; seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Champion: I was hoping somebody would speak from DogPAC. Lehman: Well, you can take their place. (laughter) I...we should point out that there is an alternate on this project that will be bid, but not necessarily accepted, and that is to include a pond, where the estimated total cost, including the alternate, is $140,000. The basic bid estimate at $76,000. O'Donnell: We also should point out that this is a loan. Bailey: Right, this is a public/private partnership with the JC DogPAC. Elliott: I also wish that the DogPAC people were here to speak about this because I'm just, I would have to vote against it. I, I like the initial understanding that the City would provide the property, that the DogPAC people would develop and operate the dog park, and there was no mention of an extensive loan. $70,000 or $140,000, and I would have to vote against this. Lehman: I think we have someone to speak to this. Atkins: The DogPAC Park folks are here. Good. Kelly: My name is Jim Kelly. I'm Vice President of the DogPAC. I guess, we're just here to, we're talking about the bids today, and getting those. I'm new at the whole City Council thing, so I guess I'll just start...any questions you have for me I'd be glad to answer to the best of my knowledge, and we do have other people from DogPAC available if I'm unable to answer those. So... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #6 Page 27 Champion: Well, I think I'd like to know how the fund raising is going. About how you think it's going to go, and that's my question. Kelly: As far as I know, the fund raising, you know, with all the talk with the City loan, that's actually increased our fund raising efforts, you know, I'm getting all that publicity out there. The closer we're getting to the project, the more interested people are in donating, you know, the businesses and other things that are...they want to see this project completed. This is a project that's been talked about for quite a while. Now that things are starting to move along and we have, you know, projected dates of being open, people are more willing to donate money. I'm a business owner here in Iowa City, and we have donated, or pledged quite a bit of money towards this park, as well. So, we're looking to see this thing up and open as soon as possible. Lehman: What kind of monies have you got collected, or pledged? Burnside: Good evening. I'm Anne Burnside, and I've been with the DogPAC from the beginning. We currently have about $20,000 in cash. We have pledges of about another $20,000, and recently, we've received an indication from private individuals that they are willing to loan interest- free. We've right now got commitments for $20,000. When we indicated to some of our supporters that this loan from the City would be beating 4.25% interest, there was discussion among some of the supporters that in order to avoid paying interest, that some private people are going to be putting up some money. So, that would reduce the amount that has to be borrowed from the City. The reason for requesting the loan from the City was, and is, only so that we can try and catch this construction season. It's never been a question of whether the money and the support exists in the community. It does, and it is, but we are a very small, very non- professional group, and I got to tell you, learning how to fundraise or raise funds is an education I never particularly wanted. (laughter) Champion: You can have doggie bake sales. (laughter) Burnside: We do that. We give away dog cookies at "dog swim." So, it's strictly so that we can catch this construction season. That's the only reason that we have come to the City to ask for this loan. Champion: No, I understand that, but I'm just looking at the interest of the City also. I totally support the project, by the way. Lehman: What sort of pay-back time do you anticipate? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. Page 28 Burnside: We haven't signed a loan document yet, but the draft I've seen says five years. Champion: Okay. Thank you. Lehman: Okay. Thank you, Anne. Vanderhoef: And...and this altemate, we saw some figures on how the pay-off could come in a five-year period, estimated income, and then I see this additional add-on as a possibly, and I recognize that it could well be a lot cheaper to put in a pond with the initial development certainly, rather than come in later and move fences and get big equipment in there, and so forth. Burnside: Yeah, we're kind of tom on that topic. I think you're right that it would probably be more cost-effective to do it at the beginning, but it does substantially increase the cost of the park. Having the water feature is something a lot of people...retriever-type dogs are really hoping and dreaming for, and we just don't know if it's going to be financially feasible. So, at this point, we're calling it an alternate and we'll see how the money rolls in. Lehman: Anne, I would suggest that you have some discussions relative to that, prior to us getting a bid back, which will not be any great length of time because my suspicion is that our acceptance of the alternate will be largely dependent on how we perceive your position on it and your ability to pay it back. Burnside: Yes, thank you. Well, we've talked about that, and ! think we understand the time-frame involved. Lehman; Okay. Bailey: I want to just thank the DogPAC too for providing that fundraising plan for us. When we talked about the loan, that was something that I'd asked for to make sure...I know fundraising is a daunting task, but the thought that we could have such a wonderful park for $140,000 is pretty exciting, I think, for all of us. So, I commend your group for taking on the fundraising, even if you didn't want to learn it in your lifetime. (laughter) Bumside: Thanks. Lehman: Thank you. Elliott: Just so it's clear, I certainly support the dog park. I just think it should be on a "pay as you go." About the pond, my daughter has and her partner This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #6 Page 29 have a 95-pound Lab who would love to jump in that water. I can you that, fight now. Burnside: Tell her to bring the dog to the "dog paddle" in September. Karr: We have a motion on the floor. Lehman: We closed the Public Heating? Boy, my age is catching up with me. Any further discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 6 to 1; Elliott voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #9 Page 30 ITEM 9 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, ENTITLED "CITY FINANCES, TAXATION AND FEES" CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINE AND PENALTIES," SECTION 8, ENTITLED "PARKING VIOLATIONS," TITLE 9, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "PARKING REGULATIONS," SECTION 10, ENTITLED "PARKING FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING" AND SECTION 14, ENTITLED "ENFORCEMENT," AND ADDING NEW SECTION 15 ENTITLED "LIBRARY PARKING" TO INCREASE AVAILABILITY OF PARKING FOR LIBRARY PATRONS, TO ESTABLISH FINES FOR LIBRARY PARKING VIOLATIONS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR INCREASED ENFORCEMENT OF LOADING ZONE VIOLATIONS. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Vanderhoefi Move the ordinance. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Champion: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion? Elliott: As I said last night, I like everything about this except the capacity to ticket a violator in the drop-off every ten minutes, and the capacity to tow an illegally parked vehicle at that drop-off site initially, without a ticket, and therefore, I will vote no against this. I wish those weren't in, then ! would be very supportive of it. Bailey: I'm really supportive of this ordinance, simply because we need to keep that parking out in front of the Library, people moving through it, and even though it's posted, the limitations, people.., we know that people violate that, and I think that we have to make sure that that's enforced, rigorously, and I think this will (can't hear). Lehman: And this is at the request of the Library. Actually, I believe the ordinance, as we are discussing it, has an effective date in October. Is that not correct? We...I believe, discussed an amendment changing the effective date to September 15th. Is there an amendment to that effect? Bailey: So moved. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Moved by Bailey; seconded by Vanderhoef to change the effective date to September 15th. Discussion of the amendment? All in favor of the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #9 Page 31 amendment? Opposed? The amendmem carries. Now, discussion of the resolution, or the ordinance, as amended. Roll call. Motion carries 6 to 1; Elliott voting in the negative. Champion: I would like to point out to the public that we did, we were assured last night that this would be posted very clearly. Lehman: Yeah. Dilkes: The ordinance requires that it be. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #17 Page 32 ITEM 17 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE IOWA CITY LANDFILL FY06 CELL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. Lehman: We received three bids; estimate was $2 million; low bid, JB Holland Construction of Decorah, Iowa, $1,249,918.53. Public Works is recommending the award to JB Holland Construction. Champion: That's the kind of bid I like. O'Donnell: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell. Bailey: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Bailey. Discussion? That is really nice...we've been estimating the $2 million for a long time. Atkins: I think staff was as surprised as anyone. We'd like to think we'd get a little closer on our estimating, but apparently, there's just not that much work out there and these folks are trying to lock this work up for this construction and into the next one. Champion: (can't hear) over estimated, than under estimated. Atkins: Well, that's true. (laughter) Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. Elliott: We're kind of wacky tonight. Lehman: We just couldn't believe the bid. (laughter) Champion: No, we're flabbergasted. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #21 Page 33 ITEM 21 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Elliott: Nothing here. Lehman: Connie? Champion: I have something. Lehman: Yes? Champion: It involves zoning .... I mean loading zones. You know, at Tower Parking now? Tower Place Parking? We've raised the maximum daily parking to $14.50. I am concerned that that's such a huge jump from $4.20, or whatever it was. Atkins: $4.80. Champion: $4.80. And because a lot of young people park there when they're downtown at night, and because they can leave their cars there overnight. Atkins: Yes. Champion: I wonder if we're going to increase them because they've had a couple drinks of alcohol, their brains might not be functioning, it might be functioning like mine is now (laughter) but I'm wondering if we're going to be increased them to get in their cars and drive, where they can come back the next morning and have to pay $14.50. I think it's a big jump. I think it's a lot of money. It's a lot more money than we've every charged for any parking lot. It's a huge jump. I don't know if anybody else feels that way, but I think we're going to increase people to get in their cars and drive when they shouldn't be. Atkins: Problem...first of all, we're trying to respond to the Senior Commission. That was one of their ideas to cause more turnover, because that is one of our more popular parking garages, and secondly, at $5 a day, people were storing their cars. Lehman: I don't question a $5 a day if they would charge it, but what's the max at the other ramps? Do you know offhand? Vanderhoef: It's the same at Capitol. Lehman: Oh, it's $14.50 there, as well? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #21 Page 34 Atkins: Yeah, I mean, if you're there for...and they were storing cars. $5 a day is pretty cheap parking. You're not, Connie, I'm not arguing with you because I'm probably not wrong because folks will do that. Park and... Elliott: Well, we can't discuss it, but I think it's a valid point. Vanderhoef: The rate, I think, at the new parking ramp is going to be less. Is that right? Atkins: Court Street? Court Street will be overwhelmingly permits. Permit parking. I don't think the rates are dramatically different, Dee. I mean, I'd have to check. I don't recall. Vanderhoefi I thought they were going to be a bit less. (several talking at once) Champion: Is there enough people here who agree with me, or at least like to discuss this? Or am I the only one? Bailey: I thought we had parking (can't hear). Atkins: ...budget on the list, start next week on budget, next time around for budget (several talking at once) Bailey: I'm willing to talk about it, Connie. Champion: Thank you. Lehman: Steve, if we could have a memo giving the rationale and whatever, and then we could.. Bailey: ...for all the ramps too, it sounds likely. Atkins: Yes. Lehman: Okay. Anything else, Connie? Champion: No...oh, I did talk to a few bar owners and I will finish talking to other people on Dubuque Street about creating another loading zone, and they seem to be fully agreeable about it. Atkins: Let us know. Champion: I will. Lehman: Mike? O'Donnell: I just wanted to question Steve on the footbridge by Iowa River Power. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #21 Page 35 Atkins: Yeah? O'Donnell: Any idea when that's going to be completed? Atkins: I wish I could tell you, Mike. Lehman: Weather. several talking at once) Atkins: When the river goes down, we're ready to go. Lehman: The reservoir is still pretty high. Atkins: Yeah, it is. Vanderhoef: We don't get the rain. It just all comes north of us into the watershed, and O'Donnell: I just got to ask the question. Lehman: Dee, go ahead. Vanderhoefi Okay, just want to congratulate the Benton Hill Neighborhood folk for the wonderful party and celebration that they put together, as well as for all their hard work in waiting first, and then developing and getting that park open. It is just a real jewel to find a park like that in the middle of our city and it's really nice. Go out and take a look. Wilbum: And thanks for all the businesses that made donations of food and beverages for them to have that celebration. Atkins: And the...archway is up now. Yep. Just put it up. It's only been up a few days. Bailey: I just wanted to recognize the passing of a great woman in Minnette Doderer last weekend. She certainly was an advocate for Iowa City and a pioneer for women. I know that when Minnette first went to Des Moines, the Capitol did not have a women's restroom. They actually expected her to go across the street to use the restroom. Knowing, I mean, we all know Minnette and that was rapidly fixed. (laughter) But I'm glad to see that times have changes, and she really led the way for that. Elliott: Well said. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005. #22 Page 36 ITEM 22 REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF. Lehman: Okay. Grandpa, do you have anything? Atkins: Hey! (laughter) Lehman: You know, just for everybody's information, Steve is now joined the ranks of grandfathers. Welcome to the fraternity! You will thoroughly love it. Atkins: I'm too young. (laughter) Lehman: So are all the rest of the grandpas in the world. O'Donnell: If he can only carry himself as well as you have. Lehman: Wow. Atkins: Thank you. Lehman: I got that one. All right. Eleanor? Marian? Do we have a motion to adjourn? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of August 16, 2005.