Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-02 Info Packet I:; I --= -~... ~~~;!:~ -..:::;., -....m-i- .....- ~ CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET February 2, 2006 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS IP1 City Council Meetings and Work Session Agendas IP2 East Central Iowa Council of Governments Board Meeting Notice [Submitted by Council Member Vanderhoef] IP3 Iowa League of Cities Legislative Link Volume: 81-15 and 81-16 [Submitted by Council Member Vanderhoef] IP4 Submitted by the City Manager - copy of May 25, 2004 memorandum from the Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development: Engine Brake Ordinance Research IP5 Memorandum from the Chief of Police: Notification of review period for the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant (former law enforcement block grants) IP6 Memorandum from the Budget Management Analyst to the City Manager: City Assessor IP7 Letter from the Assistant Superintendent of Solid Waste to Steve Fugate: Grease collection in Iowa City downtown alleys IP8 Letter from the JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner to Residents of Morningside Drive between 7'h Avenue and College Street: Potential traffic calming on Morningside Drive IP9 Letter from the Farmers Market Supervisor and Director of Parks and Recreation to Market Vendors: Expand Saturday morning market stalls IP10 Quarterly Investment Report October 1, 2005 - December 31, 2005 [prepared by the Senior Accountant] IP11 Letter from Jeff Braverman to the Director of Traffic Engineering: Planned college site of the I nternational Center IP12 Approved Minutes: Economic Development Committee: September 13, 2005 IP13 Approved Minutes: Economic Development Committee: December 15,2005 PRELlMINARYIDRAFT MINUTES IP14 Parks and Recreation Commission: January 11, 2006 IP15 Planning and Zoning Commission: January 19, 2006 IP16 Board of Adjustment: January 11, 2006 J;; ! --= -~ :t~~'t '-' -"'m~ -~ CiTY OF IOWA CiTY City Council Meeting Schedule and Work Session Agendas [2IJ February 1, 2006 www.icgov,org . THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2 7:00p Budget - Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS I . THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Budget - Work Session . MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13 5:30p Special Work Session 7:00p Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall . MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20 Presidents' Day - City Offices Closed . MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session/City Conference Board Meeting . TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Special Formal Meeting . MONDAY, MARCH 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p City Council Work Session . TUESDAY, MARCH 7 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Formal Council Meeting . MONDAY, MARCH 20 6:30p City Council Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall . TUESDAY, MARCH 21 7:00p Formal Council Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall . WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29 4:30p-6:30p Joint Meeting - Local Jurisdictions Emma J. Harvat Hall . MONDAY, APRIL 3 6:30p City Council Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall . TUESDAY, APRIL 4 7:00p Formal Council Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall . MONDAY, APRIL 17 6:30p City Council Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall . TUESDAY, APRIL 18 7:00p Formal Council Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall pages 1-2 3-10 II 12-13 14-15 16-17 18 19-21 .2 22-24 .3 25-26 .4 27 .5 5.0 .1 6.0 .1 .2 7.0 Submitted by Council Member VAnderhoef East Central Iowa Council 0 Governments Board Meetin Notice 1:00 P.M. January 26, 2006 East Central Iowa Council of Governments 108 Third Street SE, Cedar Rapids IP2 TEL 365-9941 FAX 365-9981 1.0 CALL TO ORDER .1 Recognition of Alternates .2 Public Discussion .3 Approval of Agenda 2.0 .1 .2 ROUTINE MATTERS Approval of Minutes (November 29,2005) Budget Reports/Balance Sheets 3.0 .1 .2 COMMITTEE REPORTS Nominating Committee Executive Committee . Approval of December Minutes Personnel Committee . Executive Director Performance Review . FY07 Salary Plan Budget Committee . FY07 Agency Budget Transit Operators' Group Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee .3 .4 .5 .6 4.0 .1 AGENCY REPORTS Director's Report . Depository Resolution . Strategic Plan Update Community Development Report Housing Report Transportation Report . Set Public Hearing Date Solid Waste Report OLD BUSINESS Approval of Expenditures NEW BUSINESS Local Issues Discussion Legislative Discussion NEXT MEETING: . Request to have Executive Committee meet in lieu of full board in February . March 30, 2006 - FULL BOARD ECICOG is the Region 10 planning agency serving local governments in the counties of Benton, Iowa, Johnson, Jones, Linn, and Washington. MINUTES East Central Iowa Council of Governments Board Meeting 2:00 p.m. - November 29, 2005 15127'" Street, Coralville, Iowa MEMBERS PRESENT Lu Barron-Linn County Supervisor Larry Wilson-Johnson County Citizen Henry Herwig-Coralville City Council Leo Cook-Jones County Supervisor Ross Wilburn-Iowa City City Council David Vermedahl-Benton County Supervisor Bill Daily-Benton County Citizen Jennifer Fischer-Jones County Citizen Ann Hearn-Linn County Citizen Pat Harney-Johnson County Supervisor Linda Langston-Linn County Supervisor Gary Edwards-Iowa County Citizen Ed Raber-Washington County Citizen Ed Brown-Mayor oj Washington Charles Montross-Iowa County Supervisor Randy Payne-Washington County Supervisor MEMBERS ABSENT Ric Gerard-Iowa County Supervisor Wade Wagner-Cedar Rapids Commissioner Don MagdeJrau-Benton County Citizen Don Gray-Mayor oJCentral City Dennis Hansen-Jones County Citizen ALTERNATES PRESENT - None OTHER'S PRESENT Larry Pump-Larry Pump, CPA Alice DeRycke-Iowa County Supervisor STAFF PRESENT Doug Elliott-Executive Director Gina Peters-Administrative Assistant Jennifer Ryan-Planner Mary Rump-IT/Transportation Planner Robyn Jacobson- Transit Administrator Eric Freese-Housing Specialist Kristin Simon-Planner Chad Sands-Planner Lisa-Marie Garlich-Planner Lisa Treharne-Planner 1.0 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson, Lu Barron at 2:00 p.m. .1 Recognition of Alternates - None .2 Public Discussion - None .3 Approval of Agenda M/S/C (Langston/Harney) to approve the agenda. All ayes. I 2.0 ROUTINE MATTERS .1 Approval of Minutes (September 27, 2005) M/S/C (Wilson/Herwig) to approve the minutes as written. All ayes. .2 Preceding Month's Budget Reports/Balance Sheets Elliott gave an overview of the October financial statements. M/S/C (Hearn/Langston) to receive and file the October financial statements for audit. All ayes. 3.0 AGENCY REPORTS .1 Director's Report Larry Pump from Larry Pump, CPA presented the FY 2005 audit report. A copy of the report was included in the board packet mailing. (Montross and A lice DeRycke joined the meeting at this time.) M/S/C (Raber/Brown) to accept the FY 2005 audit report. All ayes. Elliott gave a presentation to the board on a proposal to relocate the ECICOG offices. The proposal was included in the board packet mailing. Wilson reminded the board the personnel committee asked Elliott last year to evaluate the current space and staff needs. Discussion followed on the proposal. M/S/C (Cook/Langston) to allow Elliott to negotiate a lease agreement at 700 16th Street NE. All ayes. (Payne joined the meeting at this time.) Elliott presented the year in review to the board as an element of his performance review. Wilson handed out the minutes from the October 27 personnef committee meeting, the performance review sheet and goals to be filled out as Elliott went through his presentation. Wilson thanked Elliott for his presentation, and encouraged board members to turn in the evaluation forms before they left. .2 Community Development Report - None .3 Housing Report - None .4 Transportation Report - None .5 Solid Waste Report - None 4.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS .1 Nominating Committee Barron appointed Hearn, Wilson, and Wilburn to the nominating committee to present a slate of officers to the board at the January meeting. Hearn was selected as chairperson of the committee. 5.0 OLD BUSINESS .1 Approval of Expenditures M/S/C (Brown/Herwig) to approve payment of expenditures. All ayes. 6.0 NEW BUSINESS .1 Local Issues Discussion Brown told the board the casino in Riverside has a website: www.riversidecasinoandresort.com. Vermedahl noted that Vinton is the featured town on KWWL this week. Elliott presented Garlich with an engraved pen to commemorate her 5-year anniversary at ECICOG. Barron and Elliott presented awards to board members that have terms expiring on December 31 st. Vermedahl presented Barron with an engraved gavel for serving as chairperson for the last two years. M/S/C (Herwig/Brown) to authorize the executive committee to meet in lieu of the full board in December. All ayes. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. NEXT MEETING: Executive Committee to meet in December - TBA Gary Edwards, Secretary/Treasurer January 26. 2006 ~ City of Lisbon . Summer Library Reading Program City of Marion Flood Buyout Program Housing Rehabilitation Program Summer Library Reading Program Housing Fund Application 15 in 5 Solid Waste Committee City of Mounf Vernon . Summer Library Reading Program City of Palo Compost Program SWAP Applicotion City of Springvllle Zoning Ordinance . Subdivision Ordinance . Summer Library Reading Program Cedar Rapids/Linn County Solid Waste Agency Outreach Investment Program Administration lIIegai Dumping Prevention Pilot Project Festival Recycling Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan Update Keep Linn County Beautitui Committee HHW Awareness Grant for CESQG Linn County Public Education Assistance . Johnson/Linn County Public Leadership Group Housing Fund Administration . Housing Fund Application lAMA COUNTY City of Chelsea . Summer Library Reading Program City of Clufler . Summer library Reading Program City of Elberon Summer Library Reading Program City of Toledo . Summer Library Reading Program City of Traer Recycling Program Assistance Tama County Household Hazardous Waste Facility Promotion Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan Update . Recycling Program Advertising WASHINGTON COUNTY City of Brighlon Housing Rehabilitation Program Circuit Rider Community City 01 Crawlordsville CDBG Administration - waste water City 01 Kalona . Housing Fund Application City of Riverside Housing Fund Application City of Washington CDBG Community Facilities Administration . Down Payment Assistance Program II City 01 Wellman . Housing Rehabilitation Program CDBG Administration-Doycore Housing Fund Application Washln~lon County . FHiLB/AHP Administration Ii City of Kalona Housing Fund Application City of Riverside Housing Fund Application REGIO~AL Solid WlIsle Landfills/ Commissions Contract for Waste Tire Processing Contract tor White Goods Processing . COmprehensive Plan Rule Change Committee . Solid Waste Comprehensive Pianning Staff Solid Waste T AC Stoff Assistance to Solid Waste Commissions Green Rehabilitation through Ownership (GRO) Prep ore Form E for SWAP Applications Community Development . IMC/USDA Circuit Rider Planner Project Thl! Employment Handbook iLC Small Communities Workshop . ED'" CEDS Pian Update Transportaflon/Transfl . Administration of Regional Transit System . Statf Assistance to Contracted Transit Providers . Annual Consolidated Transit Application Administration ot State & Federal Funding Contracts . Prepare Annual Service Agreements . Procure Regional Transit Equipment Staff Transit Operators Group Stqff Transportation Policy Committee Stqff Transportation T AC . Staff ITS Ad Hoc Committee Trqnsportation Planning Work Program . Transportation Improvement Program . Lomg Range Transportation Plan Update . Trail Plan Update Reflionai ITS implementation Coordinate with Metropolitan Planning Organizations . Staff Transit Services Review Committee Iowa As.oclaflon 01 Regional Councils . Stdff serves on Board of Directors Iowa Re~ycllng Association . Stdff Serves on Education Committee & \lanous committees General! Public and Other Organizations Annual Member Government Survey . Edl;Jcational Presentations . InfQrmation Provision & Referral . Planning & Zoning Workshops & Training ECIC~G EAST CENTRAL IOWA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS YOUR REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY o Printed on recycled content paper. 2005 ECICOG Services to Member Governments BENTON COUNTY City of Atkins . Summer Library Reading Program City of Belle Plolne . Codification Recycling Program Presentation City of Blalrstown . Summer Library Reading Program City of Garrison Circuit Rider Community City of Keystone Recycling Program Technical Assistance and Education . Summer Library Reading Program City of Luzerne . Recycling Program Technical Assistance and Education City of Mt. Auburn . Recycling Program Technical Assistance and Education COBG Application City of Newhall Summer Library Reading Program City of Norway Summer library Reading Program City of Shellsburg Recycling Program Education Summer Library Reading Program City of Urbana . Recycling Program Education City of Van Horne Recycling Program Education Codification Summer Library Reading Program City of Vinton . Homeownership Assistance Program . Compost Program SWAP Application Circuit Rider Community . Hazard Mitigation Grant Application . Summer library Reading Program . Solid Waste Education Programs Benton County Down Payment Assistance Program CDBG Administration wastewater . Comprehensive Plan Update Household Hazardous Waste Facility Promotion Recycling Program Advertising SWAP Grants-Benton Co Recycles I & II . Electronic Recycling Grant . Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan Update Land Evaluation & Site Assessment Program IOWA COUNTY City of Ladora FEMA Firefighters Grant Application City of Marengo Summer Library Reading Program City of Mlllersburg COBG Application CAT Application City of North English . Housing Rehabilitation Program Circuit Rider Community . Summer Library Reading Program City of Williamsburg . Summer Library Reading Program Iowa County . CDBG Administration - waste water Household Hazardous Waste Facility Promotion Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan Update . CDBG Application - rural water Amana Schools Summer Library Reading Program . Recycling Program Advertising Watershed Improvement Application - Conroy Sewer JOHNSON COUNTY City of Coralville Housing Rehabilitation Program . Housing Fund Application Summer Library Reading Program City of Iowa City Household Hazardous Waste Facility - education & promotion programs . Electronic Waste Program education & promotion . Summer Library Reading Program HHW Awareness Grant for CESQG City of Lone Tree . Housing Rehabilitation Program Solid Waste Assistance City of North Liberty . Comprehensive Plan Update . Housing Fund Application EDSA Project Administration Summer library Reading Program City of Oxford . Summer Library Reading Program City of Shueyville Development Review City of Solon Summer Library Reading Program Housing Rehabilitation Program City of Tlffln Summer Library Reading Program Johnson County Land Use Plan Review Housing Task Force . FHLB/AHP Administration III Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan Update Johnson/Linn County Public Leadership Group JONES COUNTY .CIty of Anamosa Housing Rehabilitation Program (II & III) . Summer Library Reading Program Comprehensive Plan City of Martelle Summer Library Reading Program City of Monticello Flood Buyout Program . Circuit Rider Community . Green Rehabilitation for Ownership (GRO) Summer Library Reading Program Housing Fund Application City of Olin Housing Rehabilitation Program Summer Library Reading Program . Housing Fund Application City of Oxford Juncllon Hazard Mitigation (POM) PI, City of Wyoming Summer Library Reading Program Jones County COBG Administration - wastewater . COBG Application - wastewater . Solid Waste Comprehensiv< Plan Update FHLB/AHP Administration School Recycling Program. SWAP Grant Recycling Program Advertising . Zoning Ordinance Sign Ordinance LINN COUNTY City of Bertram . Development Review City of Cedar Rapids Summer Library Reading Program . 15 in 5 Solid Waste Committee City of Center Point Summer Library Reading Program CAT Application City of Cenhal City COBG Administration - day care Summer Library Reading Program City of Coggon . Summer Library Reading Program City of Falrtax Housing Rehabilitation Program Summer Library Reading Program Comprehensive Plan City of Hiawatha Summer Library Reading Program From Dee Vanderhoef ~ Volume: 81-15 Date: January 20, 2006 Legislative Link i~i~' :c. to }~e. \~1'~' ",- On Wednesday, the Senate Republicans held a press conference to unveil their proposal on EMINENT DOMAIN. Two identical bills have been filed. One is an Economic Growth Study Bill, SSB 3008, and the other is SF 2046 which has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee. The League has registered against both bills. We expect the House RepUblicans to release their bill in the House Judiciary Committee next week. The issue can be divided into two general areas - those provisions that are a result ofthe KELO case recently upheld by the US Supreme Court, which affect the ability of a city to condemn for economic development purposes; and those provisions that affect the other "publiC use, public purpose" authority of a city to use eminent domain. The League continues to work to infonn legislators about the consequences of these proposals. Several bills that would freeze property assessments for certain seniors or veterans have been filed. The League opposes this approach in favor of state assistance programs thet target these groups, and remains focused on overall PROPERTY TAX REFORM as outlined in the League/ISAC property tax proposal. House and Senate Ways and Means COmmittee members will be key decision makers on all property tax issues. To see a listing of these legislators, visit htto:/Jwww.leais.state.ia.us and click on 'Committees. . On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Commission approved the final WATER QUAUTY standards rule requiring all waters of the state to be presumed to be held to a "fishable/swimmable" standard. In October, the League filed comments in opposition to this rule. The next step is for this rule to be presented again to the legislature's Administrative Rules Review Committee, most likely at their February meeting. The League, in conjunction with other groups, will be asking legislators to vote for a session delay. If this motion passes, the rule would be delayed until the end of session. The League is working on legislation that would provide additional protections for cities in this process without undUly passing on the costs to upgrade treatment facilities' equipment. That legislation will begin as a Study Bill in (he Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee. On another note, a subcommittee was held yesterday on HF 2044. This bill would provide that a city cannot be required to construct any additional wastewater treatment facilities for twenty years from the last upgrade. During the second week of the 2006 session, legislators held BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS in the moming and regular committee meetings in the aftemoon. The pace has been fairty fast as leaders are trying to finish session in 100 days; April 19 is the projected final day of session. Representatives Jack Drake (R, Lewis), Jeff Elgin (R, Cedar Rapids), Pam Jochum (0, Dubuque), Jim Kurtenbach (R, Nevada), Wall Tomenga (R, Johnston), Todd Taylor (0, Cedar Rapids), and Roger Wendt (0, Sioux City) have been assigned to a standing subcommittee in the House to consider PENSION ISSUES. We expect most pension bills to start in the House this year. City officials should make a special point to discuss the impacts of proposed changes to the Iowa Public Employee Retirement System (IPERS) or the Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa (MFPRSI) pension programs with their local legislators. Proposed changes include member buybacks of benefits and rate increases for employers and employees. Please register today for the League's annual LEGISLATIVE DAY which will be held February 1 in Des Moines. You will enjoy policy leader discussions at the Downtown Mamott Hotel in the moming, a luncheon keynote by political writer Mike Glover of the Associated Press, and a lawmaker reception at the Capitol at 2 PM. Make sure your city is represented! The registration fee will increase $10 as of January 21. Online registration is available at htto:/twww.iowaleaaue.oro. Now that session is in full swing, track the BILLS OF INTEREST for cities at htto:/Jwww.iowaleaaue.orolLeaislativeIBiIILisI.asox? committee=A11 where you can find which bills are being lobbied by the League, or for those bills which we may declare a position in the future. Specific codes indicate the League's position, either for (F) or against (A) or noted as to monitoring for future interest. ~ League Members can get a current legislative Status Update on high priority Issues affecting cities by visiting www.iowBleBgue.orgAegls/st/ve. IOWA This document is updated weekly or as legislation develops. Legislative Unk is a publication oflhe Iowa Laagua of Cttles. If you have questions LEAGUE or issues, pJeasecontacl us at 317 SixlhAvenue, SUle 800, Dee Moines, IA 50309 or call (515) 244-7282. Alematively, you may email us at _ _._._._1...._.... __ v.... ..... ___:'.:__ _.... ...._=__ ~...._ I ...-.......=._, ,...1, _.. ___...... _..._~_ ,..__ 1_._ I ...__.._ ,..",a:__ 10\\:1 L e:lque of Cities I From Dee Vanderhoef Volume: 81-16 Date: January 27,2006 c;J Legislative Link rn There is stili time to reglstel for the League s annual LEGISLATIVE DAY being held February 1 In Des MOines VW!l Important Issues 011 the table illcludlng p,operty tax eminent domain water quality and pel1sl011 Issues your Clt, i~eeds to be represented' Online registration IS available at http ilwww lowa1eague org I Kauffman (chair), Kurt Swaim, Jody Tymeson, Rick Olson, Kraig Paulsen, and George Eichhom has been appointed. HF 2125. sponsored by Rep. Doug Struyk, takes a slightly different approach on some of the isSues. These bills are both very comprehensive in nature and it is extremely important that enough time is taken in deliberation for legislators to understand the ramifications of any proposed changes. In thJ Senate, a subcommittee was held on SF 2046; ANOTHER EMINENT DOMAIN bill. Subcommittee members Keith Kreiman and Bob Brunkhorst (co-chairs), David Miller and Hennan Quirmbach were joined by other legislators to hear a discussion of effect of the bill on cities and economic development. The next subcommittee meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 30. The League is on the agenda to speak about the bill. It is clear the subcOmmittee wants to address issues raised by the Kelo decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer. Some members indicate they do not want to delve into other major procedural changes contained within the bill. I The League's WATER QUALITY bill will be filed early next week and appear as a study bill in the Semite Natural Resources Committee. Thanks to all the cities that have been sending infonnation; it is being compiled and will be presented to legislators as we discuss the importance of our bill. I Work on PENSION ISSUES will begin next week as a subcommittee meets to discuss HSB 536, which contains technical changes recommended by IPERS. We expect most pension issues to be considered first in the House, then the Senate. I Check out the LEAGUE WEBSITE at httDj/www.iowaleaaue.oro to see what's new in the "Legislative" section, such as advocacy tips in the "Legislative 101" section and a listing of the bills we are following. I . h~ League Members can gel a current Legislative status Update en high priority issues a1fecting cities by visiting wwwiowaleague.orgIIegisIative. This IOWA document is updated weeldy '" ..legislation develops. Legis/atiw Unk is a publication of the Iowa League of Cities. W you have questions or _ issues. please contact us at 317 Sixth Avenue, SU~e 800, Des Molnes, IA 503ll!l '" call (515) 244-7282. Alternatively, you may email us at ~ -..-,-..-.---..- -- v_. _ -~~ -- .._~-- ~--, -~----, ,-~-- - -1-.- --~- -"-- '_0_' --'- ~ ~..- The LeaguellSAC PROPERTY TAX REFORM bill, SSB 3047, has been filed in the Senate and will soon be available in the House, Senate subcommittee members include Hennan Quinnbach and Mark Zieman (co-chairs), Joe Bolkcom, Mike Connolly, Ron Wieck and David Miller. These legislators and other Ways and Means Committee members will be key decision makers on moving this bill. Let them know SSB 3047 eliminates inequities caused by the rollback fonnula, makes the property tax system more simple to understand, and assures taxpayers of a reasonable limitation on their property tax bill while establishing a stable revenue source for important city services. Contact infonnation for all committee members can be found at httD://www.leois.state.ia.us (click on "Committeesj. A bill being considered by a House Ways & Means subcommittee, HF 266. would LIMIT PROPERTY TAX LEVIES by cities and counties to the prior year's levies when a state equalization order increases valuations unless a public hearing and vote is held by the council. The League is urging subcommittee members Doug Struyk, Kraig Paulsen and Don Shoultz to recommend amending the legislation to instead require publication of a new budget fonn as outlined in the League/lSAC proposal. We believe this altemative approach would provide more clarity to the public regarding the budget and levy decision process. Subcommittee members are considering that recommendation. EMINENT DOMAIN continues to be a hot topic at the Capitol. Two bills have been introduced in the House. both of which contain many provisions that affect the current use of a city's eminent domain authority for ALL purposes. HF 2120 has 51 sponsors and has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The sponsors are led by Representative Bill Dil< and are bipartisan, A subcommittee including Representatives Jeff " I ~ j -~~-I!t... !!~~~'"t. '-:' ...., ........ ... thv'~ xt ME \tci RAN AD 11 M I]ij Date: May 25, 2004 To: From: City Council Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director, Depl. of Planning and Community Development 111 Discussion item for June 1 Work Session: Engine Brake Ordinance Research Re: Attached is a summary of research prepared by the JCCOG Transportation Planning Division for consideration of an engine brake ordinance for Iowa City. This information has been prepared at your request based on comments received from the public on the need for such an ordinance. Please plan to discuss this matter at your June 1 work session. If there is a majority of Council in favor of proceeding, we will prepare an engine brake ordinance for your consideration, Bring any comments or questions to the June work session. cc: Steve Atkins Eleanor Dilkes Matt Johnson Anissa Williams Karin Franklin Mgr/agendalje-engineord.doc ~-UJ~ ~~~ /Nf0.~~~ ~ ~~ d ~ . ~~ t1( ~el-~Cl ~(~-- ~ ~JCCOG ~~ r..._.... me m 0 Date: May 26,2004 To: From: Jeff Davidson, JCCOG Executive Director Anissa Williams, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner dW Re: Engine Brake Ordinance Research As requested by the City Council, following is a summary of research for consideration of an engine-braking ordinance for Iowa City. Engine braking is also referred to as "jake-braking", which is a registered trademark of Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Inc., which manufactures the Jacobs Brake. Because this is a proprietary name, our discussion should refer to engine braking, not jake-braking. The engine brake is supposed to save wear and tear on the braking system of large trucks. It is similar to downshifting a manual transmission vehicle to augment braking in emergency stopping situations. The problem with large trucks engine braking is the loud noise which is produced. This has led some communities to prohibit engine braking within municipal boundaries. City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes, Police Captain Matt Johnson, and seven Midwest cities with engine braking ordinances were contacted as part of this evaluation. Eleanor cited City Code Section 1-4-1(B) to address the issue of maximum fine values. This section of the code allows for a maximum fine of $500 for a specific offense. She suggested setting a specific fine for the offense so the fine can be imposed instead of a warrant issued for arrest if the Defendant fails to appear in court. Matt addressed the issue of enforcement of the ordinance. He said the enforcement of such an ordinance would be on complaint basis, with a citation issued when violation of the ordinance was observed by a police officer. He suggested making the ordinance for the whole city instead of specific streets, and to allow a provision for engine brakes to be used in emergency situations. Ordinances in other jurisdictions have similar provisions. Matt suggested a scheduled fine of $50 for the citation. Other cities researched had a wide range of fines from $50 to $750. A frequent comment found on engine brake manufacturers' websites during staff research of this. issue is that it isn't the engine brake that makes the noise, it is the muffler system of the vehicle or lack thereof. Brian Mauriello of Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Inc. also refutes the engine brake noise claim and states the noise is associated with the muffler system only, not the engine brake. Various trucking association websites state that there are safety risks if engine braking cannot be used in emergency situations. With an emergency situations provision as suggested by Captain Johnson, that negates this concern. Seven cities were found on the internet that have engine braking ordinances. Six cities were contacted: Pleasant Hill, Iowa; Marion, Iowa; Wadsworth, Ohio; Jefferson, Wisconsin; Ashland, Nebraska; Haysville, Kansas; and Deerfield, Wisconsin. The cities were asked if they have had Engine Braking Ordinance Research May 26, 2004 Page 2 any positive or negative feedback regarding their engine braking ordinance and how it was enforced. All but one of the cities feel the ordinance is effective. Haysville, Kansas does not enforce the ordinance so they are ambivalent towards it. The other six cities enforce the ordinance only if a violation is observed, or on a complaint basis. None of the cities have received any opposition to the citations issued. Only one city mentioned the option to appeal a citation and to date there have not been'any appeals received. A sample of the ordinance from Pleasant Hill, Iowa is attached. Let me know if you have any other questions. Attachment cc: Steve Atkins Eleanor Dilkes Matt Johnson Anissa Williams Karin Franklin jccogtptrnernljakebrake,doc . , . ORDINANCE NO. 557 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, IOWA 1998, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 40 PUBLIC PEACE TO INCLUDE A SECTION PROHIBITING THE USE OF SEMI-TRACTOR ENGINE BRAKES. BE IT ENACTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill, Iowa: WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Pleasant Hill, Iowa, to prohibit the use of semi-tractor engine brakes or 'Jake-brakes" within the city limits. SECTION 1. NEW SECTION. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Pleasant Hill, Iowa, 1998 is amended by adding a new section in Chapter 40 Public peace numbered 40.07, entitled SEMI-TRACTORS: PROHIBITED NOISES, which is hereby adopted to read as follows: 40.07 SEMI-TRACTORS: PROHIBITED NOISES. It shall be unlawful for any person within the city limits to make, or cause to be made, loud or disturbing noises with any mechanical devices operated by compressed air and used for purposes of assisting braking on any semi-tractor. SECTION 2. REPEALER. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repeaied. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. If any section, provision or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid or unconstitutional such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. WHEN EFFECTIVE. This ordinance shall be in effect from and after irs final passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the Council the , 2001 and approved this ,2001. Phil Hildebrand, Mayor ATTEST: Michael C. Daspit, City Administrator/Clerk ,... i .' ~ ~. I certify that the foregoing was published as Ordinance No, 557 on the _ day of ,2001, Michael C, Daspit. City Clerk -----------'------,_.._,---~-~_._'-----~-----_...._--_._._--- '",",''',L,' ":;s,' , "'\"", "Ii!{,,~"'" ritW1~:~~\\~~, ~'ff~~!~:.~€!-C)-~~";'! ~;t:-.. -C-./I.'/r"," o~ \,~ /,,{\" 'TI:.,,:~_,,;'tl~-\'-.~il\'1. .'JJo.;r;~J~,_ _~ ti,:::;'-J},* >#,W-~"'4:.~,<-""'-:^;.i/>-"-1"';' '~~qW [f~~---__~--:..r 'jl~"""J~'~ ,\.."!!.~,,," ""ni!!.i TO: FROM: RE: DATE: ~ DEPARTMENT MEMO Mr. Atkins, City Manager Chief Sam Hargadine .j~tlD~ Edward Byrne Memorial Grant ~~ W'1 February 1, 2006 The Iowa City Police Department in partnership with the Johnson County Sheriff's Department is applying for the 2006 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S, Department of Justice. The total amount eligible to receive for this jurisdiction is $56, 744, The grant requires that each jurisdiction come to an agreement as to how the money is divided. Out of the total, the Police Chief and the Johnson County Sheriff have agreed to split the award equally. The Iowa City Police Department will apply for the entire amount and upon completion of the draw down pass on to Johnson County Sheriff their share being $28,372. This grant does not require a local match and each jurisdiction is responsible for their own reporting requirements, The grant will be used to purchase law enforcement equipment as follows. $5890 $6000 $3376 $12,106 Flashback Digitalin-Car video w rear seat infrared camera. Because of our goal to have all marked patrol units with a properly operating recording system, this will be a spare unit to replace any units in need of repair. Dual-sided Identification Card Maker. This system will allow the Police Department to produce "Police Identification" and "Re-tired Police Identification" credentials. Four (4) less-lethal electric stun units. To be carried in all supervisor units to allow for another option/tool in high-end use of force situations. Digital photography adaptation. Money would be used for digital cameras (in each patrol vehicle & additional "high-end" camera(s)for Investigations) and/or digital evidence storage technology, $1000 Computer software for composite identification. Investigators will use this with witness' to render composite sketches of criminal suspects. $28,372 Total In accordance with the Justice Assistance Grant application the application must be on file for review no less than 30 days prior to submission. The intended expenditure list (indicated above) is on file in the Police Department and available on the department's web site. The review period ends March 4, 2006. Steve Atkins CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM ()J.. tdM/ ~ ~ ~ I! I :=~~....IIt... ~~~~~ -.::;.... _11II1'- ....,.... Date: To: January 30, 2006 From: Deb Mansfield, Budget Management Analyst City Assessor Re: Just a note to let you know that the analysis that we were able to do on changes in valuation by class of property, attributable to new construction, revaluation, # of units, etc. seems to be a specific benefit of having a City Assessor and our own Abstract and Reconciliation of Abstract as opposed to Iowa City being part of the County Assessor function. I tried to obtain similar information by class of property and type of growth (construction or revaluation) for the cities of Coralville and North Liberty and was unable to do so from the County Assessor's records due to the fact that they are all consolidated on the County Assessor's Abstract and Abstract Reconciliation. The Abstract and Reconciliation of Abstract are used by Finance for budgeting and by Accounting for the CAFR (Consolidated Annual Financial Report). Also, the 28E agreement between Iowa City and the University of Iowa is based on total square footage within Iowa City limits. We would need to be sure that the County Assessor can provide the necessary information by class of property for this contract. If we strongly consider the County Assessor as an option then we may want to review the level of detail within their respective databases for both commercial and residential; and their reporting ability on a per City and per class basis. January 12. 2006 ,1 1 ~ -~ - -.A1t WfW ,....--..., !~~!i ~~.., "",\u "I CITY OF IOWA CITY Steve Fugate 4630 0Ival Yoder TPK, SW Kalona, lA 52247 Solid Waste Division (319)-356-5180 FAxn19n'n_,lRl RE: Bio-Diesel Coop and Dowutowu Alleys Dear Mr. Fugate: Thank you for your letter regardiug grease collection in Iowa City dowutown alleys. As you noted the City is working to keep the alleys cleaner. However, we do not contract for gaIbage or grease collection. We simply regulate the vendors who provide these services. As of July 2005 the City of Iowa City requires waste vendors with dumpster on dowutowu alleys to obtaiu a pen)lit from the City. These dumpster owuers must meet the requirements in Ordinance 05-4160 in ordel- to contiuue to have a dumpster on a City dowutowu alley. Our goal is to make the haulers responsible for keeping their dumpster and the area around the dumpster in good condition. In order to enforce this ordinance we work with the companies supplying the dumpsters, not with psrticular busiuess owuers. Business owuers may contract with any private solid waste vendor for their dumpster. For your information, the cmrent vendors that collect the grease d1nnpsters in the alleys do recycle what they collect Currently, both vendors recycle this material iuto livestock feed. However, one of the vendors just broke ground for a plant that will recycle the material iuto bi<Kliesel. The City ofIowa City appreciates your iuterest. However, you sl10uld direct your efforts toward the busiuess owners with dllrnpd= on the dowutown alleys. They IjIay choose to contract with you as long as the dumpsters comply with this ordiuance. If I may be of Iin1btr assistance you may contact me at 356- 5466. Sin~j tJ~ Rodney L. Walls City of Iowa City Asst. Superintendent Solid Waste CC: Dale Helling, Asst. City Manager cC ~ r;~~, #~e January 26, 2006 I ~ I rr-::l ~~~~~ ",-... "1lII'~___ ..... ~ ~ CITY OF IOWA CiTY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240.1826 (319) 356.5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.arg Residents of Morningside Drive between 7th Avenue and College Street Re: Potential traffic calming on Morningside Drive Dear Resident: The City has been working with your neighborhood tQ develop a traffic calming project in response to neighborhood concerns about traffic speeds on Morningside Drive. A survey of the residents of Morningside Drive was conducted. The response to the survey was 11 in favor and 3 opposed to the traffic calming project. That is an 80% majority in favor, above the 60% majority required by the City's adopted Traffic Calming Program. After a public comment period, final approval will be cOl1sidered at the February 28, 2006 City Council formal meeting. If approved, the speed humps will be installed as shown on the attached diagram. If the City Council approves the project, the speed humps will be constructed later this spring. Approximately one year after installation, we would cqmplete a follow-up traffic study and another neighborhood survey. This would determine if you feel the speed humps have been effective and if the neighborhood wishes to keep them in place. We would also evaluate if traffic has been diverted to College Street with the speed humps installed on Morningside Drive. If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at 356-5254 or anissa- williams@iowa-citV.orq . Sincerely, ~~ Anissa Williams JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner cc: City Manager City Council Karin Franklin Jeff Davidson Rick Fosse Ron Knoche Jccogtplllrslaw-momingside.doc ::;;: 0 -, ::s -- :::; lfI U -- ~ /1J (j) D t::J U -, D -- < C/) (j) I'l 0- tj (j) <+ ::E C/) (j) u (j) I'l :::; I'l "-J tj <+ ::y I J> C < ~ (j) :::; u c::: (j) I p D :::; n ~ J> n --I 0 I----< D (j) Z (0 (j) C/) z VJ 0 <+ < -, (j) (j) :3 (j) 0- <+ (j) -, ru C) C) Ul "Discover the Benefits" " ~ SOUTH G1LBJ;:RT STRJ;:j;;T ~~ITY IOWA 52240-1632 ,. . ~".,"~"oo ~ - U:tc., t.-IIU-1;11 FAX (319) 356-5487 " d J ~ www.icgov.org ~~k~~ ~ ~cet: c;:] .- CITY Or, IOWA CITY lanuazy 30, 2006 Dear Vendor: As the new season quickly approaches we are writing to let you know of a change to the Saturday morning Iowa City Farmers Market. Please understand that we have taken into account your comments and concerns from our October meeting. However, after meeting with Parks and Recreation Staff; and hearing concetns from the general public (including members of the City Council) we have made the decision to expand our Saturdav morning Fanners Market by 21 stalls. Several factors were considered when m~Iri"g this decision. 1. It is the policy of the Parks and Recreation Department that when a program consistently filIs to the point that we have to m~i.min a waiting list, we will attempt to aecommtvl~t~ our patrons by either increasing the size of that program or by offering an additional session. As the Farmers Market is a Parks and Recreation program, we will follow this policy to the extent possible. 2. Our waiting list for Saturday stalls has now reached over 50 people and most of those people have been on this list for a number of years. . 3. After taking inventory of our Saturday market, we have discovered that while we have 58 stalls reserved, we have only 26 totaI vendors utiIizing those stalls. These new stalls will be located in the northeast section of the parking ramp (near the entrance from Washington Street). This entrance will be closed to vehicular traffic. The southeast portion of the ramp will remain open for parking. We will also utilize the area under the College Street Bridge for parking (this area was previO\ISly designated for vendors). As always, parking will still be available on the other three floors of the parking ramp, in the Recreation Center and City HaIl Parlcing Lots, and on the street. A very important step in this process will be educating the public. We will be taking all steps possible to communicate these changes before and during the season and would appreciate your cooperation in this endeavor. SbouId you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, ~ J~~ Tammy Neumann Iowa City Farmers Market Supervisor ~ CITY OF IOWA CITY QUARTERL Y INVESTMENT REPORT October 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005 Finance Department: Prepared by: Brian Cover Senior Accountant OVERVIEW The City of Iowa City's investment objectives are safety, liquidity and yield. The primary objective of the City of Iowa City's investment activities is the preservation of capital and the protection of investment principal. The City's investment portfolio remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet operating requirements that cash management procedures anticipate. In investing public funds, the City's cash management portfolio is designed with the objective of regularly exceeding the average return on the six month U.S. Treasury Bill. The Treasury Bill is considered a benchmark for risk less investment transactions and therefore comprises a minimum standard for the portfolio's rate of return. The 4 week average return on the six-month U.S. Treasury Bill, as obtained from the monthly publication Public Investor, was 4.30% at 12/30/05. The investment program seeks to achieve returns above this threshold, consistent with risk limitations and prudent investment principles. The rate of return on the City's portfolio for the quarter was 3.83%. The reason for the lower rate is due to the way the City's investments are spread over a twelve month period which locks in rates that are lower than current rates in a rising interest environment. Investments purchased by the City of Iowa City for the fourth quarter of this year were 36 basis points higher than the threshold. Rates on new investment purchases in our operating cash portfolio for the second quarter were approximately 190 basis points higher than investments purchased at this time last year. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend to each other. The Federal Reserve raised the target of the federal funds rate to 4.25% on December 13, 2005. The Federal Reserve has raised interest rates 300 basis points since June 2004. The quarterly investment report lists investments by fund, by institution, by maturity date, and investments purchased and redeemed. New official state interest rates setting the minimum that may be paid by Iowa depositories on public funds in the 180 to 364 day range during this quarter were 2.70% in October 2005,2.80% in November 2005 and 3.00% in December 2005. CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND DETAIL LISTING BY MATURITY DATE 12/31/2005 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE VAN KAMPEN GOVT MUTUAL FUND 22-Jul-85 N/A 200,000.00 VARIABLE NORWEST BANK SAVINGS 01-Dec-99 N/A 200,000.00 VARIABLE IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 13-Jun-02 N/A 2,000,000.00 VARIABLE IPAITIWELLS FARGO IPAIT 29-Nov-02 N/A 632,775.98 VARIABLE LIBERTY BANK CD 15-Apr-05 2-Jan-06 2,600,000.00 3.66 WEST BANK CD 13-Jan-05 03-Jan-06 2,150,000.00 3.25 WEST BANK CD 13-Jan-05 09-Jan-06 750,000.00 3.25 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 27-Jan-05 20-Jan-06 2,150,000.00 3.26 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 25-Feb-05 26-Jan-06 163,506.11 1.78 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 27-Jan-05 27-Jan-06 750,000.00 3.26 WEST BANK CD 10-Feb-05 03-Feb-06 2,150,000.00 3.37 UICCU CD 09-Mar-04 03-Feb-06 514,166.59 4.25 UICCU CD 10-Mar-05 10-Feb-06 750,000.00 3.61 UICCU CD 10-Mar-05 17-Feb-06 2,150,000.00 3.61 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 10-Mar-05 24-Feb-06 750,000.00 3.62 FREEDOM SECURITY CD 15-Apr-05 24-Mar-06 750,000.00 3.85 UICCU CD 15-Apr-05 31-Mar-06 2,150,000.00 3.72 FREEDOM SECURITY CD 15-Apr-05 07-Apr-06 750,000.00 3.85 IOWA STATE BANK CD 15-Apr-05 14-Apr-06 2,150,000.00 3.79 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 3-May-05 21-Apr-06 3,000,000.00 3.71 UICCU CD 03-May-05 28-Apr-06 3,000,000.00 3.81 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 17 -May-05 05-May-06 1,000,000.00 4.01 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 17 -May-05 12-May-06 3,000,000.00 4.01 IOWA STATE BANK CD 24-May-05 19-May-06 2,000,000.00 3.86 UICCU CD 10-Jun-05 26-May-06 2,150,000.00 3.81 LIBERTY BANK CD 11-Mar-04 01-Jun-06 187,523.98 2.17 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 14-0ct-05 01-Jun-06 3,500,000.00 4.41 FREEDOM SECURITY CD 10-Jun-05 02-Jun-06 750,000.00 3.92 FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 10-Jun-05 09-Jun-06 2,150,000.00 4.01 FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 24-Jun-05 16-Jun-06 750,000.00 3.92 FREEDOM SECURITY CD 24-Jun-05 23-Jun-06 2,250,000.00 3.97 LIBERTY BANK CD 13-Jul-05 30-Jun-06 750,000.00 4.16 WEST BANK CD 18-Jul-05 30-Jun-06 2,788,440.16 3.90 UICCU CD 15-Sep-05 30-Jun-06 2,000,000.00 4.32 UICCU CD 24-May-05 1-Jul-06 1,000,000.00 3.92 FREEDOM SECURITY CD 07-Jul-05 03-Jul-06 974,504.00 4.01 LIBERTY BANK CD 13-Jul-05 07 -Jul-06 2,150,000.00 4.16 UICCU CD 30-Aug-05 14-Jul-06 750,000.00 4.42 IOWA STATE BANK CD 30-Aug-05 21-Jul-06 2,150,000.00 4.47 UICCU CD 30-Aug-05 28-Jul-06 750,000.00 4.42 UICCU CD 15-Sep-05 04-Aug-06 2,000,000.00 4.37 UICCU CD 15-Sep-05 11-Aug-06 750,000.00 4.37 IOWA STATE BANK CD 14-0ct-05 18-Aug-06 2,250,000.00 4.61 UICCU CD 14-0ct-05 25-Aug-06 750,000.00 4.52 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 14-0ct-05 01-Sep-06 2,250,000.00 4.53 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 14-0ct-05 08-Sep-06 750,000.00 4.54 IOWA STATE BANK CD 14-0ct-05 15-Sep-06 2,250,000.00 4.71 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 14-0ct-05 22-Sep-06 750,000.00 4.56 UICCU CD 27-0ct-05 29-Sep-06 2,150,000.00 4.67 FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 30-Mar-05 30-Sep-06 5,731,830.21 4.11 UICCU CD 27-0ct-05 06-0ct-06 750,000.00 4.62 LIBERTY BANK CD 27-0ct-05 13-0ct-06 2,150,000.00 4.67 UICCU CD 27-0ct-05 20-0ct-06 750,000.00 4.62 IOWA STATE BANK CD 27-0ct-05 27-0ct-06 2,150,000.00 4.71 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE FTN FINANCIAL GOVT SECURITIES 22-Nov-05 01-Nov-06 718;497.19 4.59 IPAIT CD 18-Nov-05 10-Nov-06 2,150,000.00 4.62 LIBERTY BANK CD 17 -Nov-05 17-Nov-06 750,000.00 4.72 FTN FINANCIAL GOVT SECURITIES 22-Nov-05 21-Nov-06 736,117.50 4:66 LIBERTY BANK CD 17 -Nov-05 24-Nov-06 2,150,000.00 4.74 LIBERTY BANK CD 11-Mar-04 01-Dee-06 188,930.41 2.57 FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 20-Dee-05 08-Dee-06 2,150,000.00 4.82 IPAIT CD 12-Dee-05 08-Dee-06 6,577,860.00 4.72 IPAIT CD 21-Dee-05 15-Dee-06 750,000.00 4.78 IOWA STATE BANK CD 20-Dee-05 22-Dee-06 2,150,000.00 4.81 FREEDOM SECURITY CD 30-Dee-05 28-Dee-06 1,000,000.00 4.78 US BANK CD 25-Feb-05 26-Feb-07 2,261,901.00 3.94 LIBERTY BANK CD 11-Mar-04 01-Jun-07 190,347.39 2.67 TOTAL $107,966,400.52 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT ACTIVITY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005 INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 9/30/05 102,416,820.89 INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INTEREST INSTITUTION TYPE DATE DATE RATE PURCHASES 10/01/05 TO 12/31/05 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 14-0cl-05 01-Jun-06 4.41 3,500,000.00 IOWA STATE BANK CD 14-0cl-05 18-Aug-06 4.61 2,250,000.00 UICCU CD 14-0ct-05 25-Aug-06 4.52 750,000.00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 14-0ct-05 01-Sep-06 4.53 2,250,000.00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 14-0ct-05 08-Sep-06 4.54 750,000.00 IOWA STATE BANK CD 14-0ct-05 15-Sep-06 4.71 2,250,000.00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 14-0cl-05 22-Sep-06 4.56 750,000.00 UICCU CD 27 -Ocl-05 29-Sep-06 4.67 2,150,000.00 UICCU CD 27-0cl-05 06-0ct-06 4.62 750,000.00 LIBERTY BANK CD 27-0ct-05 13-0ct-06 4.67 2,150,000.00 UICCU CD 27 -Oct-Os 20-0cl-06 4.62 750,000.00 IOWA STATE BANK CD 27 -Ocl-05 27 -Ocl-06 4.71 2,150,000.00 LIBERTY BANK CD 17 -Nov-05 17 -Nav-06 4.72 750,000.00 LIBERTY BANK CD 17 -Nov-05 24-Nov-06 4.74 2,150,000.00 IPAIT CD 18-Nov-05 10-Nov-06 4.62 2,150,000.00 FTN FINANCIAL GOVT SECURITIES 22-Nov-05 01-Nov-06 4.59 718,497.19 FTN FINANCIAL GOVT SECURITIES 22-Nov-05 21-Nov-06 4.66 736,117.50 IPAIT CD 12-Deo.05 08-Dec-06 4.72 6,577,860.00 FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 20-Dec-05 08-Dec-06 4.82 2,150,000.00 IOWA STATE BANK CD 20-Dec-05 22-Dec-06 4.81 2,150,000.00 IPAIT CD 21-Dec-05 15-Dec-06 4.78 750,000.00 FREEDOM SECURITY CD 30-Dec-05 28-Deo.06 4.78 1,000,000.00 TOTAL PURCHASES $39,582,474.69 REDEMPTIONS 10/01105 TO 12/31/05 UICCU (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 09-Mar-04 01-Nov-05 2.06 (253,788.86) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 18-Nov~04 07 -Oct-Os 2.78 (750,000.00) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 18-Nov-04 14-0ct-05 2.79 (2,000,000.00) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 18-Nov-04 21-0ct-05 2.81 (750,000.00) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 18-Nov-04 28-0cl-05 2.83 (2,000,000.00) UICCU (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 09-Mar-04 01-Nov-05 2.06 (362,165.23) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 18-Nov-04 04-Nov-05 2.84 (750,000.00) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 07 -Dec-04 11-Nov-05 2.96 (2,150,000.00) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 07 -Dec-04 18-Nov-05 2.97 (750,000.00) WEST BANK CD 10-Feb-05 18-Nov-05 3.32 (2,000,000.00) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 07 -Dec-04 23-Nov-05 2.98 (2,150,000.00) WEST BANK CD 15-Sep-05 01-Dec-05 3.95 (1,560,000.00) LIBERTY BANK CD 11-Mar-04 01-Dec-05 1.87 (186,128.03) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 07 -Dec-04 02-Dec-05 3.00 (750,000.00) UICCU (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 01-Nov-05 03-Feb-06 4.25 (192,952.94) UICCU CD 12-Dec-03 09-Dec-05 2.33 (6,577,860.00) US BANK CD 22-Dec-04 09-Dec-05 2.99 (2,150,000.00) US BANK CD 22-Dec-04 16-Dec-05 3.00 (750,000.00) US BANK CD 22-Dec-04 22-Dec-05 3.00 (2,150,000.00) UNION PLANTERS CD 01-Apr-05 27 -Dec-05 3.85 (2,150,000.00) UNION PLANTERS CD 01-Apr-05 27 -Dec-05 3.85 (750,000.00) UNION PLANTERS CD 01-Apr-05 27 -Dec-05 3.85 (2,150,000.00) WEST BANK CD 13-Jan-05 28-Dec-05 3.25 (750,000.00) TOTAL REDEMPTIONS (34,032,895.06) INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 12/31/05 107,966,400.52 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND SUMMARY BY FUND FUND TYPE 12/31/2005 INVESTMENT AMOUNT 12/31/2004 INVESTMENT AMOUNT ALL OPERATING FUNDS GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVE FUND BOND RESERVE FUND TOTAL CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND LISTING BY INSTITUTION INSTITUTION NAME 88,285,333.74 4,066,801.78 200,000.00 15,414,265.00 87,976,383.20 6.537,672.26 700,000.00 16,314,265.00 107,966,400.52 111,528.320.46 12/31/2005 INVESTMENT AMOUNT 12/31/2004 INVESTMENT AMOUNT BANK OF THE WEST FARMERS & MERCHANTS SAVINGS BANK FIRST AMERICAN BANK FREEDOM SECURITY BANK HILLS BANK & TRUST IOWA STATE BANK IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST LIBERTY BANK U OF I COMM CREDIT UNION REGIONS BANK US BANK US TREASURY NOTES AND AGENCIES WELLS FARGO BANK WEST BANK VAN KAMPEN TOTAL 18,063,506.11 5,050,000.00 5,731,830.21 6,474,504.00 0.00 15,100,000.00 12,110,635.98 11,116,801.78 22,364,166.59 0.00 2,261,901.00 1,454,614.69 200,000.00 7,838,440.16 200,000.00 29,504,724.71 974,504.00 0.00 8,500,000.00 0.00 13,737,492.50 3,802,265.84 7,187,672.26 17,860,326.76 5,500,000.00 6,674,408.50 0.00 4,157,849.00 13,429,076.89 200,000.00 111,528,320.46 107,966,400.52 I .---- Federal Funds Rate I i I ! 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00. 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q.. 0;),0 ~ q.. 0;),0 ~ q.. 0;),0 ~ q.. 0;),0 ~ q.. 0;),0 - -- ------ ------- ------------ ------ EXHIBIT A , I I , ~ FILED ZDD6FEB-/ PN /:07 CiTY CLERK 10\1'\11\ CITY, IOWA February I, 2006 Mr. Jeff Davidson Director of Traffic Engineering Planning City ofIowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Last week I received in the mail a notification of a meeting for the Manville Heights Neighborhood Association to discuss the implications to the neighborhood of a planned new college on the site of the International Center. On January 31, I called Marcia Klingaman, Neighborhood Services Coordinator, to let her know that I will be out of town and unable to attend. During my conversation with Ms. Klingaman, I discussed my concern that the new college would exacerbate an already bad situation with traffic in the Manville Heights area. As we discussed this, I also brought up my longstanding consternation with the Traffic Calming gate installed in 2001 on Lexington Avenue. Let me relate my personal experience with the 2001 gate on Lexington Avenue. My home is located on the comer of Park Road and Hutchinson Avenue. I became aware that Traffic Calming was an issue on Lexington Avenue the week before it was scheduled to be discussed at a City Council meeting. I called Ernie Lehman, Councilman McDonald, and Councilwoman Champion. I told them I was against putting up a gate as a means of calming traffic. Mayor Lehman told me that my presence at the council meeting was not necessary as he was certain that no action would be taken that evening. Needless to say, I didn't show up at the meeting, inferring from Mayor Lehman's comments that there would be other opportunities for affected citizens to express their concerns. This is not how things turned out This is a request for the city to study traffic in the Manville Heights area. Let this letter serve as a request to permanently take down the gate on Lexington Avenue. While traffic may have been "calmed" on Lexington Avenue, the remaining north/south streets in the neighborhood have been negatively impacted. The overall traffic in Manville Heights, especially the east/west traffic on Park Road, will only grow worse as the population of the surrounding area expands and the needs that the University has for labor increase. The proposed college at the International Center will certainly create additional traffic, even with most parking proposed to be located on the south side of Highway 6. The sentiments of the owners of property on the north part of Lexington Avenue regarding the gate were documented in 2000/200 I. There are alternative calming methods that would be more receptive to the entire neighborhood. There are additional streets in the neighborhood that appear to be in need of traffic calming: take a look at the speed and density of autos on Park Road from City Park to Lee Street. I have been in contact with residents on Lee, Magowan, and Ferson streets. I have been informed by one of my personal contacts that he has personally talked with members of two households on Lexington Avenue. My take from this polling is that there is a groundswell to improve traffic calming methods in the Manville Heights area and to reconfigure the Traffic Calming choice for the "big dip" on Lexington Avenue so that traffic is allowed all year. Enclosed you will find a packet of information that pertains to the history of the installation of the gate on Lexington Avenue. Kindly let me know how to proceed so that these two requests are given serious consideration. cc: tfuwa City Council 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 0 '" = = ;Eo "" ...., p- m -j to 11 n--, ,. I --t Cj r- _-<r m I~ " " - -'I ::!!: 1"1 O~-' '- - '-J ~'^' - )> .. 0 ...... i . ... . rrafflc Calming a roadway to force cars to slow down, or to deter Neighborhood Traffic unnecessary traffic. These physical changes can be raffic calming is the practice of trying to manage as simple as on-street parking and planting trees Calm.in~ Program. Jeeds and/or volumes of traffic on residential streets between the sidewalk and curb, to constructing sing one or more approaches: increased police diverters to force traffic to go one way or another. Some EvaluatIon Criteria nforcement, education, or physical changes to the of the alternatives are shown on the drawing beiow. ladway. Each of these approaches has its appropriate Other alternatives are availabie and each application 1. To initiate a traffic study of the street proposed for traffic pplication, and combined they can help reduce is custom designed to meet each neighborhood's nwanted cut-through traffic or reduce speeds on individual needs. calming, a formal request is required from the neighborhood association that includes the street proposed eighborhood streets. ~ for traffic calming, or a petition from residents ~nforcem.ent along the street proposed for traffic calming. 2. The street considered for traffic calming lcreased police enforcement is ~ measures should be a local street or a ffective at targeting high speeds collector street. uring specific times. However, the 3. Traffic voiumes on a local street should olice department does not have ufficient resources to provide exceed 500 vehicles per day and on a ontinuous enforcement over a collector street 1 ,000 vehicles per day, Traffic ustained period in all volume on any street proposed for traffic eighborhoods. Therefore, while calming should not exceed 3,000 vehicles per Jeeds are rapidly reduced with an day. flicer present, they also return to 4. The measured comfortable speed of leir previous level when the targeted nforcement moves to other areas. drivers (85th percentile speed) should exceed he police department does select 5 m.p.h. over the posted speed limit. pecific streets to enforce each S. Staff will meet with the neighbors and lonth. determine which traffic calming measures are ;:ci ucation reasonable for evaluation. Staff will conduct a traffic study which will include evaluating ducation is the process of making the potential traffic problems, roadway geometry, and the impact on adjacent streets rivers aware of their speeds in (traffic diversion) from the proposed traffic llation to the neighborhoods they calming measures. re traveling in. Several programs 6. The Police Department, Fire Department, re being used to notify drivers of leir responsibility to obey traffic ambulance service, Public Works IWS. One example is the "Share the Department and Transit Department will be :oad" sign to identify that both bicycles and ,,( 'i'^B asked to comment on the proposed street modification. utomobiles have rights and responsibilities Whil&;JfNJ\ :#-6WJ 0 I AI? 7. If the traffic study shows that traffic calming measures sing the roadway, Another program t~at includes )\\:b,j' PP y. Igns as well as TV commercials IS the Check Your FOIIOW~S ~y of the City's adopted traffic calming can be implemented safely, a mail-back survey of all affected peed" program to alert drivers to watch their speedt. 0 : \ \oltPlictr.' 6, mportant thing is that the residents residential dwelling units will then be conducted by the City. A proposal for traffic calming must be supported by 60% of I residential areas. of the neighborhood need to be involved in the the residential dwelling units responding to the questionnaire ~hysica.l Changes djiYj in order to be considered for implementation. City staff would be happy to meet with your 8. No minimum number of responses to the mail-back o help control excessive speeds or unwanted cut- neighborhood to explain in more detail some of the survey is required, but a low response rate will be taken lrough traffic, physical modifications can be made to issues associated with traffic calming. into consideration by the City Council. -0 FILt. Lnn~ fEB - I Pl~ \: 01 r'l"v i': FR\Z Potential traffic calming on Lexington Avenu~\y,^\ 'r\"i~- IOWA 'U\jlir\ V,l I, Dear Resident: March 21, 2001 Lexington Avenue Residents Re: j ~ 1 _r-=_..... l;---....-... ~~II~~'"l. ~~~IID., ....,...~ ~ City of ~ ~ eX Last fall a group of residents from Lexington Avenue contacted the City with concerns about speeding traffic and reckless driving on Lexington Avenue. The group of residents requested that Lexington Avenue be closed with a barrier between McLean Street and the driveway to 420 Lexington Avenue. This would make Lexington Avenue into two culs de sacs, one extending from Park Road and one extending from River Street. There would be a gap in the barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists to get through, but the street would be closed to through traffic from motor vehicles. The City Council determined that they were willing to have this proposal considered under the City's traffic calming program. Our evaluation of the neighborhood's proposal to close Lexington Avenue progressed to the point last fall where a neighborhood meeting was held at Lincoln School in November to discuss the pros and cons of the proposal. At the meeting there were concerns expressed by some residents of Lexington Avenue, who indicated they were opposed to the proposal because they wished to be able to access their residences from either Park Road or River Street during the winter months when snow and ice are present. There were also general concerns expressed over the restricted visibility for motorists at the Lexington Avenue-Park Road intersection. The meeting at Lincoln School was concluded with the neighborhood group realizing that they needed to give additional consideration to the proposal and address the concerns expressed by neighborhood residents. We have again been contacted by the neighborhood group, called the "Lexington Avenue Action Committee." They have modified their proposal for traffic calming on Lexington Avenue which is intended to address the concerns of neighborhood residents expressed at the November meeting. The modified proposal has a barrier erected on Lexington Avenue to restrict through traffic as was originally proposed; however, a gate would be installed so that Lexington Avenue would be opened to through traffic during the winter months when snow and ice may be present, and closed the remainder of the year. The attached diagram will give you an idea of how the proposed barrier and accompanying signage would be implemented. The barrier is proposed to be located where we feel it provides the maximum visibility along Lexington Avenue. The next step in the City's traffic calming program evaluation is a survey of the neighborhood. The "neighborhood" is defined by the City Council as all residential dwelling units on property which is contiguous to Lexington Avenue, as well as all residential dwellings on any street which must use Lexington Avenue for access, This results in a survey of 25 affected households: the 300 and 400 blocks of Lexington Avenue including the corner residences on Park Road and River Street, and the 700 block of McLean Street. The enclosed postage-paid survey has been provided for you to indicate to us how you feel about the proposed barricade on Lexington Avenue. The City's traffic calming program is not intended to have the City impose unwanted traffic calming devices on a neighborhood. Rather, it is intended to allow a neighborhood to determine if they wish to have traffic calming devices installed. The neighborhood survey must indicate that at least 60% of neighborhood residents responding are in favor of the proposed traffic calming installation. Otherwise, the proposal will not be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. To clarify, each residence receives one vote, not each resident. 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET. IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240-1826 . (319) 356-5000 . FAX (319) 356-5009 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 2001 TO: City Council FROM: Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development RE: Proposed traffic calming on Lexington Avenue --rJ( The Transportation Planning Division has completed its evaluation of the proposal for traffic calming on Lexington Avenue. The attached information, which was circulated in conjunction with the neighborhood survey, explains the proposal in more detail. What is proposed is a barricade which would be erected on Lexington Avenue, closing it to motor vehicle traffic and essentially creating two cui de sacs, one extending from River Street and one extending from Park Road. The barricade would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to get through, and would be removed entirely during the winter months. The attached information explains in more detail how this proposal came to be developed by the neighborhood. A neighborhood survey was conducted of 24 residences with access to Lexington Avenue between River Street and Park Road, plus the McLean Street cui de sac which is only accessible through Lexington A venue. 21 survey postcards were received back (88% rate of return), with fifteen in favor of the proposal and six opposed (71% percent in favor). In accordance with our neighborhood traffic calming program, the police department, fire department, Johnson County Ambulance Service, public works department, and transit division were also asked to comment on the proposed barricade. Attached are comments received from the police department, fire department, and transit division. The public works department inquired as to whether or not the barricade would be removed during the winter months, and when told that it would be, declined to provide any comments. Let's plan to discuss this matter at your April 30 work session. Hopefully, at that meeting you can indicate whether or not you would like to proceed with the proposed traffic calming installation. You will recall from earlier discussions that barricading a street is not something we would typically' consider under the neighborhood traffic calming program. You agreed to consider it under the unique circumstances of the Lexington Avenue dips at the neighborhood group's request. If you decide you would like to go ahead with the proposal, the next step will be to meet with the residents in the area where the barricade would be erected and determine the specific design that we would use. We would hope to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Funding for the barricade would come from the neighborhood traffic calming fund of the Capital Improvements Program, and it would be erected by City crews. Bring any questions you have to the April 30 work session. I have indicated to interested persons who have contacted me that the work session is not an opportunity for public input, so you may hear from persons in favor of or opposed to the proposal prior to that time. Karin Franklin "" cc: 0 = =, Chuck Schmadeke :?:O 0" ...., Rick Fosse p-', f"1 a:J Marcia Klingaman ,........,-.of". , ~ J Beth Pfohl ::::.:J i--" , ", -...:'".....-- m Lexington Avenue Action Committee . " n~1 Cl 0;1:] ::J:; [J ppdadm/memllexington4-30W5.doc s/-, )3: 0 -I If the proposal does receive at least 60% approval from your neighborhood, it will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration, along with comments on the proposal which are being solicited from the Fire Department, Police Department, Ambulance Service, Department of Public Works, and Iowa City Transit. If approved by the City Council, we would then work with the neighborhood to determine the exact design of the gated barrier. Signage would also be erected on Lexington Avenue during those months when the street is closed indicating to motorists that it is not a through street. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please return your survey postcard no later than April 13, 2001. If you have any questions, I can be contacted at 356-5252, or you may contact Beth Pfohl, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner, at 356-5254, $100;/11 At ..~.,L Jeff Davidson Director of Traffic Engineering Planning Attachment cc: City Council City Manager Marcia Klingaman, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Rhys Jones, Lexington Avenue Action Committee jccogtplltrs/jd-lexington _doc Q ~::,Q -v- _~I '-<: ,-. \-:..:~, (-j --; r.-.C -0 ~rn ::r.: ~7: )7 ,...:> = C~? ...;/.... --n ,""" cO I - 11 - r- 'm b - c:> -' City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM FROM: RE: March 26, 2001 Andy Rocca, Iowa City Fire Department Matt Johnson, Iowa City Police Department Bud Stockman, Iowa City Streets Superintendent Ron Logsden, Iowa City Transit Mike Sullivan, Johnson County Ambulance Service Jeff Davidson, Department of Planning and Community Development rtl Proposed traffic calming project on Lexington Avenue DATE: TO: A group of residents from Lexington Avenue has proposed a traffic calming project consisting of the closure of Lexington Avenue for approximately eight months of the year. This proposal is intended to deal with neighborhood perceptions of speeding traffic, and reckless driving on Lexington Avenue. The proposal was originally for a year-round closure of Lexington Avenue; however, this has been modified to leave Lexington Avenue open during the winter months. This change was made to address concerns by Lexington Avenue residents, particularly near the Park Road intersection, who wish to be able to access their residences from both River Street and Park Road during the winter months. The attached information prepared for the survey of the neighborhood summarizes the proposal in more detail. In accordance with our approved traffic calming process, we are asking for your comments on the proposal. Please provide any comments or concerns no later than April 13, 2001. If the neighborhood survey shows at least 60% of the respondents in favor of the proposal, it will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration, along with all of your comments. If there is not 60% approval by the neighborhood, the proposal will not be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Attachment cc: Lexington Avenue Action Committee jccogtplmem"d~lexproposal.doc cj <' ~Q "-> = ~~ "" ;:J cd I -n r-- , IT! ,-. V r-, -''-. .'::.../ ;:2 ~~ ril 0-- -,.. ~. <;: ;:~ :s -u =r o -..j Jeff Davidson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Matt Johnson Friday, April 13, 20019:53 AM Jeff Davidson RJ Winkelhake Lexington St survey Jeff- I have not received anything of a significant nature regarding Lexington's proposed traffic calming. I do not believe that this would have an adverse impact on our delivery of service, save the reeducation of officers as to which side of the closure certain residences are on. Please call you have questions. Thanks for the opportunity to provide input. Matt Johnson N = 9 = CT' .." zOo g -n ?-.--; - / \ - 0-' 1 2P \T1 ..., 0 - 1'\1 :J: -:D ~7' - .. 0 J:> -I 1 Iowa City Transit Memo To: Jeff Davidson, Depa~t of Planning and Community Development From:Ron Logsden, Iowa City Transit Date: 03/29/01 Re: Proposed Traffic Calming on Lexington Avenue Iowa City Transit does not use Lexington Avenue, nor do we have any plans to divert our Manville Heights route to using Lexington Avenue in the future. The proposed traffic calming on Lexington Avenue would have no impact on Iowa City Transit or the service we provide. r-> $ cr -"l ~ I -0 zO t?'~ '-< n :::\ C) :<~\ '-"JJ ~7~ J:'" . Page 1 - 11 - ,-- 'rn 'Il V --0 :Jt. - .' o -l Jeff Davidson From: Sent: To: Subject: Andy Rocca Friday, April 13, 2001 1 :06 PM Jeff Davidson Proposed traffic calming on Lexington Avenue I have reviewed the referenced proposal and solicited comments from my administrative staff officers. While I am sensitive to the residents' concern for traffic calming on Lexington Avenue, I'm adamantly opposed to the installation of a gate or barrier. Emergency services are efficiently and effectively delivered on a network grid of arterial, collector, and local streets. A barrier, such as a gate, negates the benefit of this street network. We choose to deliver our services from fixed-base facilities; however, tire apparatus also respond while in service and consequently may have to approach an emergency incident from a different direction. The time necessary to unlock a gate and maneuver fire apparatus through is estimated to be one minute. While this may seem to be negligible, response times to this area of the City are in the four to eight minute time range. A benchmark for successful intervention in a cardiac arrest patient is four to six minutes. It's obvious how critical the additional minute could implicate our response. Another street to consider in the Manville Heights area is Hutchinson Avenue. This street is not paved between the 300 and 400 blocks, further complicating response routes in the area. Even if the gate isn't needed for a Lexington Avenue response, subsequent responses from this street would certainly be affected. Other areas for my concern are: 1. Unattended vehicles parked at the gate could render the gate useless for emergency responders. 2. Lack of turn around provisions for Public Works vehicles and equipment. 3. Early snowfalls that freeze the gate in place. 4. The type of locking device used to secure the gate. 5. Establishing alternate pedestrian and bicycle traffic routes. Hopefully, the residents can address these issues. As I look at traffic calming from a general perspective, I would describe it as a method to slow vehicles on streets where drivers travel at higher speeds than is desirable. I believe what is being proposed in this application is traffic 'obstructing' rather than traffic 'calming'. Each time that a traffic calming request is approved by the City Council, the probability for a slower emergency response increases. Again, I am adamantly opposed to the use of a gate or barrier on Lexington Avenue. Furthermore, I believe that existing speed limits and traffic signage should be enforced, thus negating the need for a highly restrictive gate. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Let me know if you have any questions. "'" cj c:::) r.~::I -< ~ ~:._O ....... ~J..~- __,.' ,.,., CJ-<~ = -n -"-'1C ,- i .:-< , iT] nl -u ;::~ ~J] :J::: '--' ""--' ~..- \,...1 <- /'. )'; 0 ...... 1 City of Iowa City MEMORANDWIM) Date: July 17, 2002 2GUO FES - I Pl1 I: 07 CI'TV c"" """RV , j',-,.IlC J\ City Council IOWA CITY IOWA Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director, Dept. of Planning & Community Development 7-1( To: From: Re: Lexington Avenue traffic calming barricade; comments from July 15 City Council work session It is my understanding that a couple of questions were raised at your July 15 City Council work session regarding our pending one-year follow-up survey for the Lexington Avenue traffic calming barricade. We have indicated to you our intention to re-survey the Lexington Avenue neighborhood consistent with the existing procedures of our traffic calming program. This entails surveying those residences located on property adjacent to Lexington Avenue between River Street and Park Road. It is my understanding that there was not a majority of the City Council in favor of expanding the follow-up survey to additional streets in Manville Heights. If inquiries regarding the survey are received from residents outside of the immediate Lexington Avenue neighborhood, I will indicate to them that they should feel free to communicate their comments directly to the City Council since they are not part of the formal re-survey. I think it is fair to say that the Manville Heights neighborhood outside of the immediate Lexington Avenue area is generally not in favor of the Lexington Avenue barricade. In the many comments I have received from the adjacent neighborhood, there have been no positive comments regarding the Lexington Avenue barricade; generally it is felt that the barricade shifts traffic to other neighborhood streets. Expanding the follow-up survey area would have a predictable impact on the results of the survey. I would remind you that we will not be conducting a follow-up traffic study this summer because this was completed last fall. We wanted to make sure we surveyed traffic conditions during the peak traffic time of year in Manville Heights and not in the summer, so we collected our follow-up information in November (obviously before the barricade was removed for the winter) and reported it to you in December 2001. Attached is a copy of that memorandum. The study showed what we had anticipated - that there would be modest increases in traffic on the parallel streets to Lexington Avenue: Lee Street, Magowan Avenue, and Ferson Avenue. We do not consider these streets to be over- burdened with traffic. Ferson Avenue has much higher traffic volume than Lee Street or Magowan Avenue, but only a small percentage can be attributed to the Lexington Avenue barricade. There was also a question raised at the July 15 City Council meeting pertaining to the installation of signs in the neighborhood notifying persons of the follow-up survey. I went back and looked at my file notes to see what the City Council's determination had been when you last discussed the elements of the traffic calming program. At your June 11, 2001 work session, there was a majority of the City Council in favor of the following changes: for any approved traffic calming measure, an authorizing resolution will be prepared for the next City Council meeting. This will not be a formal public hearing but the Mayor indicated that he would let public input occur. During the two-week period between the City Council's approval of the traffic calming project and the official consideration of the authorizing resolution, staff was directed to put up signs in the neighborhood notifying Lexington Avenue Traffic Calming Barricade July 17,2002 Page 2 the public of the proposed project and the opportunity for public comment. Staff was directed to conduct these new procedures in conjunction with approval of a new traffic calming project but there was no mention of putting up signs in conjunction with a follow-up survey. Please let us know at your August 19 work session if there is a majority of the City Council that wishes us to post signs in the neighborhood notifying the public of the follow-up survey of Lexington Avenue residents. Staff will proceed according to your wishes. Let me know if there are any questions. cc: City Manager Director of Planning JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner Director of Public Works City Engineer Neighborhood Services Coordinator Rhys Jones, Lexington Avenue Neighborhood representative; 708 McLean Street Ann Connors, Manville Heights Neighborhood representative; 301 Richards Street jccogtp\memos\lexingtonfollowup.doc ..-> 0 = = 0"' ~O ." >=~\ rr1 --n CJ ~ C)" I -_.~ C:', I '--I] _-:<~ -0 " , \1. ~~ --J ::;:: U O~c-- ;:2:'^ - .. )> 0 ...., City of ~q~~ City MEMQFri'AtiOUM zJD Date: December 31, 2001 ("iT' ,",-- , ~J I)' l;lJ::HI\ IOWA CiTY; IOWA To: City Council From: Jeff Davidson, Asst. Director, Dept. of Planning and Community Development Re: Preliminary assessment of Lexington Avenue traffic calming You will recall that in August of 2001 a barricade was placed on Lexington Avenue near the intersection with McLean Street. This barricade was erected after a majority of the neighborhood indicated they were in favor of trying such an action in an attempt to reduce the number of recklessly operated vehicles on Lexington Avenue. There were concerns expressed by persons on adjacent streets in the Manville Heights neighborhood that the placement of such a barricade would cause vehicles to be diverted from Lexington Avenue to the parallel streets of Lee Street, Magowan Avenue and Ferson Avenue. Based on the traffic volumes that were recorded on Lexington Avenue prior to erection of the barricade we did not feel traffic diversion would be a significant problem. However, we agreed that it would be good to take before and after traffic counts in order to assess the situation. Traffic counts were recorded by the JCCOG Transportation Planning Division in August prior to the barricade's installation, and in November after the barricade had been installed. Counts were taken on both the north half and south half of Lexington Avenue. Not unexpectedly, on the north half of Lexington Avenue there was a 68% reduction in traffic volume from 232 vehicles per day (vph) to 74 vph. The 85th percentile speed was reduced from 25 mph to 17 mph. On the south half of Lexington Avenue there was a 40% reduction in traffic volume from 268 vph to 160 vph. There was a 10% reduction in 85th percentile speed from 30 mph to 27 mph. On the parallel streets of Lee Street, Magowan Avenue, and Ferson Avenue traffic data were recorded as follows: Lee Street . 13% increase in traffic volume from 239 vph to 270 vph . 3% decrease in 85th percentile speed from 30 mph to 29 mph Magowan Avenue . 23% increase in traffic volume from 391 vph to 481 vph . 4% increase in 85th percentile speed from 27 mph to 28 mph Ferson Avenue . 6% increase in traffic volume from 1,461 vph to 1,550 vph . the 85th percentile speed remained the same at 27 mph In conclusion, there was a modest increase in traffic volume on the streets parallel to Lexington Avenue following the installation of the traffic calming barricade, a total of 210 vehicles per day. It is likely that some of this increase in volume can be attributed to the closure of Lexington Avenue. The two immediately parallel through streets, Lee Street and Magowan Avenue, recorded the largest percentage increases in traffic, but the actual traffic volume numbers are relatively low. Lee Street and Magowan Avenue both remain under the 500 vehicle per day traffic threshold that we find appropriate for local residential streets. Ferson Avenue is a higher December 31, 2001 Page 2 traffic volume street because it is an access route to the Ellis Avenue multi-family housing area. Vehicle speeds on Lee, Magowan and Ferson did not increase appreciably following installation of the barricade. The Lexington Avenue traffic calming barricade has been removed for the winter months, and will be reinstalled at the end of March 2002. In accordance with our traffic calming program, we will conduct a follow-up survey of the neighborhood in August 2002 to see if they wish to continue with the three-season barricade. cc: Steve Atkins Karin Franklin Marcia Klingaman Chuck Schmadeke Rick Fosse Matt Johnson Andy Rocca jccogadm\mmoslJexingtonave.doc '" 0 c.;;:> = cr> :2.0 ..., )>--{ fT1 11 CD ~ - C)-, I I :::t(~) m .-<r- -0 - - rn U --ry :x 0;:>;: - ~ .. Cl -oJ . Location: Lexinaton Aw (300 & 400 blockJ JCCOG Date recorded: S~Dt 2000 & Nav '2001 Requested by: .J~" nJlvld~lrJn lowlI r.ity 2001 Traffic Count Program SEPTEMBER 2000 NOVEMBER 2001 ----./ "- ---.-/ "- Park Road Park Road - I - f$J Speed: 1201112 74 85% - 16.7 mph 2' 12321 Speed: 85% - 25.0mph 2' :!. :!. C;TI Speed: I 15 85% - 15.7 mph I ...., 0 = Barricade c=> McLean Street <;n o..~ McLean Street ~~-' -., ..1>=::; rtl 1 C) --< co --n 2' ~ , - 8' Speed: -""i( ) - j- ~ 1171151 ~ 160 85% - 27.0 mph .:-< i--~ rl-l ~ nl -0 12681 Speed: ~ 5:r] ::r: C-1 " .J <: 85% - 29.9 mph " <^ - <: 1~ )> .. .e I .e Speed: C> 0, .S 0, 198 85%-19.5mph 0:> <: ~ I .~ -l ~ River Street River Street Numbers shown indicate 24-hour ~ average daily traffic Data recorded by NC97 HI-STAR data classifier If there are any questions, contact the JCCOG II~JCCOGll Transportation Planning Division at 356-5235. i , , Location: FerMJn Avp-nUi!! (400 blockl JCCOG Date recorded: M.v & N(Jvemb~r ?(J()1 Requested by: ./#fffnlw;rl~nn low" city 2001 Traffic Count Program May 2001 November 2001 Park Road Park Road ~ I c= I c= I I I I 0- 0- C GlOve Street C GroveSt1eet ~ ~ Speed: Speed: 85% - 27.4 mph B5% - 27. 1 mph 0 "-' = = ;;Eo "" McLean Street Mclean Street ),.~. ...,., -, ", I l I C) .< c:o 21 I , I I -Ie - ,.- '-<I' I I --I ~ I I 1'";.'., -U ! i I 0 6:TJ ::Ji; r--I ~ I ~. '-j I " " ~/'. - J j I j ):> -- I I 0 co , I I , I I River Street River Street ~ ( ~ ( ~ Numbers shown Indicate 24-hour average daily traffic Data recorded by NC97 HI-STAR data classifier II ~JCCOG II If there are any questions, contact the JCCOG Transportation Planning Division at 356-5235. i . Location: M.now." AWl!- 1400 block' JCCOG Date recorded: Mav & November 2001 Requested by: ,1p,ffnllvirl!Mn Inwlt (;;n, 2001 Traffic Count Program May 2001 November 2001 ParK Road Parl< Road I ~ I I I I I g 0- c ~ ~ 1~tr Speed: 1Eiiff Speed: '" 0 = 391 85%.26.8 mph 481 B5% - 2B.4 mph = ::Eo =- ---" -., )>--, rn c)-c' CD 11 Mclean Street Mclean Street. , --I \. ) - I I I .:-< r". !Tl fl~l -0 I I OJJ :Jl: {-j ~ ~ ,""oJ" I ~ I ~ ;z: /', - .. I " I " )> C> ~ J 0:> I I I ! I I I I I River Sheet River Street \ ( \ ( ~ Numbers shown Indicate 24-hour average daily traffic Data recorded by NC97 HI-STAR data classifier ~ n&i JCCOG II If there are any questions, contact the JCCOG Transportation Planning Division at 356-5235. I I I Location: Lee Stre.t 1400 blocM JCCOG Date recorded: MIlV & NtJv~mb~r 2(J01 I Requested by: .JfI!fff>lIvidsnn low. Cffy 2001 Traffic Count Program I May 2001 November 2001 Park Road Park Road I Speed: Speed: ...., = B5'!6 - 30.0 mph B5%. 29.0 mph Q = "" <:0 .." :;>-; f"'"l 11 ~~ ~~ / 0:> CJ --- I ~- , ""'" -~- ("-- - l St'&~t S/~t -I.....) :-'1 -<r ~ I ~ en --0 r-' -" ::J1; ,-...I O~' ~ :;E=^ - ~ ., )> 0 0:> River Street River Street \ ( -~ ( Numbers shown indicate 24-hour ~ average daily traffic Data recorded by NC97 HI-ST AR data classifier II i1fti JCCOG II If there are any questions. contact the JCCOG Transportation Planning Division at 356-5235. -:JD City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM From: Jeff Davidson, Acting Traffic Engineering Planner -r-II ~ (:~ ~ cr ~0, G ~:2_ , C)., .- ::-1,0- ./' ..-c --\1- ::s;. - (~?p- _ -J. /,' .' z. )7 -1\ - ..~ Date: July 20, 2000 To: City Council '-i,\ '._...., U Re: Possible traffic calming on Lexington Avenue o cP Neighborhood Services Coordinator Marcia Klingaman and I met with a representative of the Lexington Avenue neighborhood on July 17. A petition has been circulated through the neighborhood asking how people felt about closing Lexington Avenue to through traffic. The proposal is to convert a short section of Lexington Avenue to a pedestrianway with dead-end streets on either end; one leading to Park Road and one leading to River Street. This is a design similar to Hutchinson Avenue which is parallel to Lexington one block east. The neighborhood representative indicated to us that the results of the neighborhood survey were 33 people in favor of the closure and 3 people opposed. The survey included two persons responding from some households. Apparently, some survey respondents indicated they would support the proposed street closure only if the Park Road-Lexington Avenue intersection was reconstructed to improve sight lines and vertical curvature. I indicated to the neighborhood representative that I felt such a reconstruction was unlikely. To clarify, this survey was conducted by the neighborhood group, not the City. If we proceed through our traffic calming process, the City would conduct a survey of the neighborhood regarding any potential traffic calming features. This neighborhood survey has been accepted as a formal request to begin the traffic calming assessment process with this neighborhood. The traffic situation on Lexington Avenue has a long history with respect to joy riders on the Lexington dips. It is my understanding that the tradition of ridi,ng the dips goes back at least to the 1940s. The neighborhood representative Marcia and I met with indicated that current residents on the street believe the safety problems relating to reckless motorists on Lexington have created the need to deal with the situation by closing the street to through traffic. At various times over the last 6 to 8 years traffic calming proposals have been evaluated with the Lexington Avenue neighborhood. These have included our usual menu of items such as traffic circles, speed humps, and chicanes. It has been the consensus of City staff and of the neighborhood that these features would likely increase the challenge of running the dips, but not have a significant effect on reducing the speed or volume of traffic. The Lexington Avenue neighborhood representative expressed his opinion that the closing of the street to through traffic is likely the only option that the neighborhood would potentially agree with to eliminate the current problems. We would not typically consider street closure as part of the traffic calming process; however, I believe it may be reasonable to do so given the uniqueness of Lexington Avenue. I do not believe elsewhere in Iowa City there exists a street where there is such an attraction for people to go out of their way to use the street for amusement. Where we would typically see a street closure divert through traffic to adjacent streets, the closing of Lexington Avenue may simply eliminate motorists who currently go out of their way to ride the dips. Please understand I am not advocating the closure of Lexington; I just feel it may be reasonable to evaluate as a unique situation in this instance. The last traffic count taken on Lexington Avenue in November 1997 showed Average Daily Traffic of 349 vehicles and 85th percentile speed of 34 miles an hour. The speed limit on Lexington is 25 miles an hour. The speed numbers make Lexington eligible for the traffic calming process; the volume numbers do not. We have an update of the Lexington Avenue traffic count scheduled for September. The purpose of this memo is to alert you that we have begun this process with the Lexington Avenue neighborhood. If there are any concerns from a majority of the City Council that would preclude us from proceeding further, we would appreciate you letting us know as soon as possible. Otherwise we will proceed according to our approved traffic calming evaluation process. cc: Steve Atkins Karin Franklin Chuck Schmadeke Rick Fosse Marcia Klingaman Rhys Jones, Lexington Avenue neighborhood group .. hy s bj ol1e.s@qol- COW) jccogadm\ltrs\lexington.doc 6 ~o ")7:::::: -<. a,e) 2>:: - (C'. -0';9 :;;;/' :P <-' """ ;? -n ~ \ - -r\ -p:: ';II '---' \..) ..., ::JC. - .. c:> c:P Lexington Avenue Traffic Calming Proposal March 2001 Park Road <&> -0 =0 =:::A y -1.- (). r" ~" \ - .--\ "'.-.- , \ -, ::'- I';, .--cO')" F ~ Y r-> "" <8- --rt ~ \ -- ...-0, ~ , 'iI\ '--,. \_) -0 ~ -- .' o cP ~ '!l c: ~ .., ~ ~\ ~ ClrY OF IOWA CITY ~ N I RIver Street I I MINUTES CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present: Regenia Bailey, Bob Elliot and Ernie Lehman (][J APPROVED Members Absent: NONE Staff Present: Steve Nasby Others Present: Dion Baylor CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chairperson Lehman called the meeting to order at 8:47 AM. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY BAYLOR CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC FOR CDBG MICRO- ENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE Nasby said that Dr. Baylor is proposing to expand his new chiropractic practice, located at 560 Highway 1, through the hiring of a part-time receptionist. He mentioned that Baylor Chiropractic Clinic is requesting $25,000 in CDBG assistance as a forgivable loan for working capital and to purchase equipment. Nasby added that Dr. Bylor has already received $20,000 from the State of Iowa's Targeted Small Business Program. Elliot said that he would like to know what the personal investment in the Clinic is. Baylor said that as a personal investment he put in his own diagnostic equipment. Baylor mentioned that he still works for the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics. Lehman said that the application does not include a complete business plan. He added that there are no financial projections in terms of expenses. Lehman noted that the only income projections included in the information are made on a 'per patient' basis, and indicate the revenues that are expected to be received per patient. He noted that the application stated there are around 55 chiropractors in Iowa City and would like to know how this Clinic's approach towards the community would be different than this competitive market. Bailey asked if Baylor had run a proforma showing cash flow projections. Baylor answered no. Bailey asked if the clinic would be collecting on insurance, and how would the system work. She added that sometimes the process of charging through insurance is very time consuming, and the clinic could expect revenues to come in after 3 months. Baylor said that they will charge through insurance. He added that he does not know how the system will work, due to that this is something new for him, and is in the process of learning the business side of operating a clinic. Lehman said that it is crucial to have income projections. Bayior said that they will need 25 patients for the Clinic to break even, and that he currently has 10 patients. Elliot asked Baylor to describe how his business is different than the other chiropractic clinics in iowa City. Baylor said that what separates him from other competitors is not only reaching out in community by providing a wellness program, but providing a continual wellness program on a daily basis that help patients in the long run. He added that most of his work will be correlated with the education of the patient. For example, he said that I the case of patients with diabetes, he will help with rehabilitation, and in the same time will make the patient understand what is causing the condition, or help them prepare diet plans that can be followed. Another example is in a case where people that are exposed to strong vibrations in their hands. He said that most people do not know that there are some special anti-vibration gloves that would minimize the impact, and the effect on a person's health. Elliot said that he would like to believe that the Committee does not only serve as a source to authorize funding, but that is also helpful in explaining what it takes in having a successful business. ---'--_._---_._'---"---,-_.,--------_._~.~._------_._--.. Economic Development Committee Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 2 Bailey said that she is not concerned about the applicant's medical knowledge, but about the cash flow of the business. Lehman said that the clinic's financial condition and expectations needs to be better known. He added that the clinic needs income and expense projections, it needs a financial plan, and a plan to differentiate itself from the other competitors. Elliot said that he hopes that this discussion will help Baylor in understanding how to move forward with his business. Bailey said that she is worried about how will the insurance processing will be done. She added that Baylor might consider paying more for getting the services of an experienced person in insurance processing. Elliot said that he would also be interested in seeing a comprehensive business plan. The Committee agreed that Dr. Baylor could return for further discussions when he had a more detailed business plan and complete financial statements. Lehman asked about the CDBG fund application process and the requirement for financial information. Nasby said that the application form asks for a business plan and financial projectionslhistory. He said that the City application also provides monthly cash-flow and balance sheet templates to potential applicants. Elliot noted that he would like to see the review process start when complete applications were received by staff. Nasby said that he would add language into the application form. SET NEXT MEETING DATE Next meeting was scheduled for September 20, 2005 at 8:30 AM. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:18 a.m. Minutes submitted by Bogdana Rus. s:fpcdfminuteslecode....I2005JedC09-13_05.doc I I I I I I I Council Economic Development Committee I Attendance Record 2005 I I I Term I Name Expires 02/01 02/17 3/17 3/31 06/21 07/19 08/15 09/06 09/13 ! Regenia Bailey 01/02/08 x x x x X X X X X I Bob Elliott 01/02/08 X X X X X I X X X X , I Ernest Lehman 01/02/06 X X X X X I x x x x ! Key: X = Present I 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting i -- -- = Not a Member I , I I I I , I I i i , I i I i , I I ! i I I , I MINUTES CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2005 CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Q;J APPROVED Members Present: Regenia Bailey, Bob Elliott and Ernie Lehman Members Absent: NONE Staff Present: Steve Nasby Others Present: CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chairperson Lehman called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Lehman asked if there were any corrections to the minutes as presented. Elliott moved to approve the minutes and Bailey seconded. Motion passed 3-0. UPDATE ON BUSINESS VISITS Nasby said that although some of the visits had been completed he was not having much success in getting the additional visits scheduled due to an apparent lack of interest on the part of the businesses. Lehman said that could be an indication that there were no pressing City issues within the business community. Bailey said that the visits she had been party to were positive. Elliott and Lehman concurred. Nasby asked the Committee how they would like to proceed. There was a consensus that Nasby should send out a letter to each of the business that had not yet been visited and ask them to respond to the City if the business would like to schedule a visit. Once staff had a list of businesses that replied a schedule for visits could be set up. Nasby said that he would send the letter out around the middle of January 2006. DISCUSSION OF FREIGHT MOVEMENT Elliott asked staff give a short history of why this item was on the agenda. Nasby said that the issue of freight movement had come up when the City was working on the financial assistance project with Lear Corporation and it had also been mentioned by Councilmember Vanderhoef as a discussion item at a League of Cities meeting. Nasby also said that the Committee had planned on using the business visits to gage the business community's interest in this topic. The Committee discussed whether or not there were areas of the community where there may be problems with the movement of freight after the scheduled capital improvements to Dubuque Street, Dodge Street, Industrial Park Road and Highway 6 are completed. The Committee decided to table this item. STAFF UPDATE Nasby noted that he had expected two applications for CDBG funding to be on the agenda; however, neither project had submitted an application in time for this meeting. He noted that in January he expected at least two and possibly three CDBG applications. Nasby said that he has also been working with ICAD on several projects and that some actions may come up for City Council consideration as early as January. Nasby informed the Committee that staff had been busy in November with the annual certifications and reporting for the Iowa City TIF districts. He said that the certification had been completed and submitted to the County by December 1 and that the Power Point presentation that had been provided to the City Council was on the City's web page for several weeks. Lehman suggested that the TIF presentation be put back on the 'Business' web page. Bailey and Elliott agreed. Bailey asked about looking more to the future and the possibility of scheduling a goal setting session with the new Economic Development Committee to look at 'the big picture'. Elliott agreed and said that he would also be interested in tracking the trends in the value of building permits across the Iowa City area. Nasby replied that having this Committee look at where future commercial and industrial land could be zoned would be his priority. He also said that he has had discussions with Lehman, Karin Franklin, PCD Director and Joe Raso at ICAD regarding additional industrial land on the SE side of Iowa City near Scott- Six Industrial Park. Nasby said that much of the land around Scott-Six was owned by Eldon and Larry ---------_._.._-----_._-_.._--~---_..__.._-,-"_._~-----------,--".._-~_. Economic Development Committee Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 2 Pribyl. Lehman said that over the years several discussions had occurred regarding that property and the owners have not made a decision on what they would like to see. Elliott said that he had talked to Eldon Pribyl and thought he would be open to discussing the possibilities. Bailey asked about commercial or retail space in east Iowa City. Nasby said that Wal-Mart had looked for land in east Iowa City prior to them making an offer on the Aviation Commerce Park property. Bailey said that she would not necessarily want a Wal-Mart, but some type of more intensive commercial would be okay. She asked if the City works to attract retailers. Nasby said 'no' that the focus has not been on retail uses as the private sector has been successful in that area. He suggested that if the Committee or Council would like to see additional retail development one of the best ways for the City to do that is to zone the land for intensive commercial and insure that the needed infrastructure was present. Lehman agreed. Baiiey asked if the City had been working with the University of Iowa regarding the development of wet lab space and that may be one area for that could be the new Aviation Commerce Park - South. Nasby said that periodic discussions with UI have taken place. He said that due to the accesses and potential industrial uses on the Williams' property that the Aviation Commerce Park - South could turn out to be more industrial than research oriented. Nasby added that if the City wanted to plan well ahead for commercial and industrial land an emphasis could be on the capital improvements plan. He said that improvements to 420" Street and Taft Avenue would encourage quicker development in that part of the community. SET NEXT MEETING DATE The Committee decided to let the newly appointed Economic Development Committee set the next meeting date. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. Minutes submitted by Steve Nasby s:/pcdlminules/ecodevf2005/edc12-15-05.doc Council Economic Development Committee Attendance Record 2005 I Term I Name Expires 02/01 02/17 3/17 3/31 06/21 07/19 08/15 09/06 09/13 12/15 I Regenia Bailey 01/02/08 x x x x X X X X X X I Bob Elliott 01/02/08 x x x x X X X X X X Ernest Lehman 01/02/06 x x x x X X X X X X I I I I ! i i Key: i I X = Present , 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting -- -- = Not a Member ~ City of Iowa City Parks & Recreation Commission January 11, 2006 - 5:00 P.M. Recreation Center Meeting Room B DRAFT CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 5:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gustaveson, Margaret Loomer, Ryan O'Leary, Matt Pacha, Jerry Raaz, John Watson, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Klink, Phil Reisetter STAFF PRESENT: Terry Trueblood, Terry Robinson, Mike Moran OTHERS PRESENT: Anne Burnside, Marla Edwards, Gary Glenn, Jan Grenko Lehman, Barbara Meredith, Jean Walker New Commissioner, John Watson, was introduced to the other Commission Members. Watson is filling the vacancy created by Sarah Walz departure. Watson's term runs 1/1/06 to 1/1/07. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council Action): Moved bv Westefeld. seconded bv O'Learv to approve the master plan for Brookland Park and to include this proiect in the FY07 bud2et. Unanimous. Moved by Pacha. seconded by Raaz. to accept the JCD02PAC Board of Directors recommendation to name the Iowa City d02 park site the "Thornberry Off-Leash D02 Park" and to also accept the fee structure with 10% of the fees collected annually bein2 paid to the Parks and Recreation Department. Unanimous. With rel!ard to the Countrv Club Estates Subdivision. Pacha moved. Westefeld seconded. to accept the developers proposal for land in lieu of fees to satisfy the Nei2hborhood Open Space requirement. Unanimous With re2ard to Lacy's Run Subdivision. Pacha moved. O'Leary seconded to accept land (0.7 acres) in lieu offees to satisfy the Nei2hborhood Open Space requirement. Unanimous. With re2ard to the Elk Run Subdivision. Pacha moved. Raaz seconded. with one abstention (O'Leary). to accept land in lieu of fees to satisfy the Nei2hborhood Open Space requirement. Unanimous. OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: Moved by Pacha. seconded by Raaz. to approve the December 14. 2005 minutes as written. Unanimous. -"----~------~---------,-------_._----------_..,~------..-------..-- Parks and Recreation Commission January 11, 2006 Page 2 of 7 Moved bv Pacha. seconded bv Westefeld. to elect Crail! Gustaveson as Chair and Judith Klink as Vice Chair for 2006. Unanimous. Pacha moved. O'Learv seconded. that the Citv contribute from the Annual Parks Maintenance and Improvement Budl!et $10.000 toward the Grant Wood purchase of new plaVl!round eQuipment. Unanimous. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: It was proposed by Pacha on behalf of the nominating committee to elect Craig Gustaveson as Chair and Judith Klink as Vice Chair for 2006. Moved bv Pacha. seconded bv Westefeld. to elect Crail! Gustaveson as Chair and Judith Klink as Vice Chair for 2006. Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion. PRESENTATION OF BROOKLAND PARK MASTER PLAN: Jean Walker, representative for the Melrose Neighborhood Association, was present to ask the Parks and Recreation Commission to support the City Manager's recommendation that this project be funded in the FY07 budget. Brookland Park is an approximately 3-acre area bounded on the southwest side by a railroad to the southeast by Greenwood Drive. It has a concrete path connecting Greenwood Drive to Melrose Court. There is a swing-set and an area with play equipment. With the exception of one security light, this park is unlit. The park currently is not very attractive for use by the neighborhood and is primarily used as a shortcut for pedestrians. The neighborhood has expressed a desire that the park be developed into a more attractive and usable area. The neighborhood has raised $13,000 to have the park listed on the National Register of Historic Places. They would like to continue this work and have the park renovated in a manner that would complement its National Register status. Trueblood mentioned that there is an area of the railroad tracks adjacent to this park is used as a shortcut for pedestrians. As this presents a hazard, Trueblood and Steve Ford of Shoemaker & Haaland met with railroad staff about the possibility of making this an official pedestrian crossing. The railroad staff did not approve this request. They stated that this is an area where the train frequently stops and that this would present an even greater hazard. Trueblood also discussed plans for the park that includes a relocated creek, improved accessibility, a trail, shelter, play equipment, a sculpture plaza, an outdoor habitat area as well as historical markers. Loomer asked if this plan will help with flood control. Trueblood stated that it would. O'Leary commented that he is pleased with this plan. Moved bv Westefeld. seconded bv O'Leary to approve the master plan for Brookland Park and to include this proiect in the FY07 budl!et. Unanimous. ._---~_.._,--~._--_._-_._--_.__._._- Parks and Recreation Commission January 11, 2006 Page 3 of 7 Raaz asked if $70,000 per acre is a typical price for park development. Trueblood stated that it depends on the development plan; however, based on his experience this is within the norm. Trueblood noted that the new shelter would be in a new location. Raaz asked about the design criteria required for shelters and stated that he advocates purchasing more permanent, longer lasting park shelters. Trueblood stated that shelters are generally installed by the Iowa City Parks Staff. Robinson noted that that there are warranties on the materials. Trueblood stated that most of the shelters in the city have over 25 year life expectancy. Raaz asked about the procedure for purchasing shelters. Trueblood stated that these purchases go through the City's purchasing procedures. O'Leary asked if there are other features that may be considered. Trueblood stated that there has been some discussion about the possibility of placing a basketball court in the park. However, the neighborhood consensus is that this may not be practical and they would like the park to present a more relaxing environment. Walker also mentioned that they may look at placing wireless connections in the park. O'Leary thanked the Neighborhood Association for their work. CONSIDER REOUEST FROM GRANT WOOD PTO FOR PLAYGROUND EOUlPMENT FUNDING: The Grant Wood PTO is currently conducting a fund raising campaign (goal is $100,000) to install new playground equipment. This $100,000 would provide for purchase and installation of playground structures and placement of a safety base surface that will accommodate up to 100 children at one time. According to Gary Glen, the PTO generates approximately $12,000 annually which is used for books, computers, and other school supply expenses. Representatives from the school and PTO were present at this meeting to ask for the Parks and Recreation Commission to contribute up to $25,000 towards their goal. Trueblood reminded Commission that in the past such requests have been denied largely because the School District does not provide any money toward playground construction. However, the city has contributed upwards of $700,000 to the school to construct a larger gymnasium and a "family resource center." Both facilities will be available for public use. It is believed that this playground will also serve as a community "park." While Fairmeadows Park is adjacent to the school, the play equipment is geared towards younger children. Trueblood noted that if the Commission does agree to provide assistance, the funds would come from the Annual Parks Maintenance and Improvement Budget. Raaz asked school staff if they had considered doing this project in phases. They are considering this as a second option if necessary. Gustaveson recommended that the Commission send a letter to the School District suggesting that they revisit their policy to not provide funds for school playgrounds. Watson encouraged PTO members to continue their involvement as this will encourage members to take ownership of this project and they will in turn take better care of the playground. Raaz asked if Parks and Recreation would have input into this project if funding is approved. Trueblood stated that they would. Pacha moved. O'Leary seconded. that the City contribute from the Annual Parks Maintenance and Improvement Budl!et $10.000 toward the Grant Wood purchase of new plaVl!round equipment. Unanimous. Westefeld emphasized the fact that this is an unusual action taken by the Commission and this message needs to be forwarded to the school board. Trueblood will draft a letter to the School '--_._-_._-_._--_._-~---~~------_._---_._,-------- Parks and Recreation Commission January 11, 2006 Page 4 of 7 District for Commission Chair's signature. O'Leary expressed gratitude to 1he PTO for their efforts. ) CONSIDER NAMING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE NEW DOG PARK; DISCUSSION OF FEES FOR SAME: Anne Burnside spoke on behalf of the JCDogP AC Board. She stated that their understanding is that they bring their naming recommendations to the Commission who will then forward to City Council. Their recommendation for naming of the park as a whole is "Thornberry Off-Leash Dog Park," in recognition of their primary donor, Dean Thornberry. Discussion then turned to the fee structure for the park. The JCDogP AC Board recommended an annual fee of $25 per dog, subject to reduction of $5 for proof of spay/neuter with an additional $5 reduction for proof that the dog is micro chipped. The annual pass would run from January 1 through December 31 and will not be prorated for late purchases. These passes will be available through the Iowa City Animal Shelter and the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department. The board recommends no nonresident fees be charged at this time and that a reduced fee be available for persons of low income, those who are disabled, and to senior citizens. Pacha asked why the Board decided to waive the nonresident fee. Burnside stated that the Board does not want to price the park so that people are not able to afford to use it, and since there are no other facilities available in the surrounding area a large number of people could be nonresidents. She reiterated that the point of the park is to exercise and socialize the dogs. Trueblood suggested that if they find that Iowa City residents are not able to use the park due to the number of nonresidents using the facility, the board may want to review this policy in one year. The board also recommends that owners provide proof of vaccination for both the annual and the daily pass. The Board is still discussing the fees for the daily pass. Their concern is that if the daily fee is too low people will opt to pay in this manner rather than purchase an annual pass and they want to encourage the purchase of annual passes. The Board is also still discussing the best way to confirm vaccinations/licenses for those using a daily pass. Westefeld commented on the importance ofrabies vaccine verification for the safety of animals and their owners. The Board recommended that 5-10% of the fees collected annually from park users be paid to the Parks and Recreation Department. The remainder will be retained by JCDogPAC and dedicated toward park maintenance and improvements. Gustaveson asked what Parks and Recreation would do with the 5-10% paid. Trueblood stated that this would go into the general fund, as all fees do to help support the overall budget. Moyed by Pacha, seconded bv Raaz, to accept the JCDol!PAC Board of Directors recommendation to name the Iowa City dOl! park site the "Thornberry Off-Leash DOl! Park" and to also accept the fee structure with 10% of the fees collected annually beinl! paid to the Parks and Recreation Department. Unanimous. CONSIDER NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE ITEMS: COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES: Trueblood reviewed new proposal from the developer of Country Club Estates with the Commission. This property includes the area in the northwest comer of the subdivision adjacent to City-owned property. A vote is needed from the Parks and Recreation Commission January 11. 2006 Page 5 of 7 Commission to accept property adjacent to Outlot A as well as Outlot B as shown on the plat included in this months packet. With reeard to the Countrv Club Estates Subdivision. Pacha moved, Westefeld seconded. to acceDt the develoDers DroDosal for land in lieu of fees to satisfv the Neiehborhood ODen SDace reQuirement. Unanimous LACY'S RUN: This is a small subdivision that requires 0.7 acres of parkland be dedicated as neighborhood open space. It is staffs recommendation that the Commission accept land in lieu of fees as this property is adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Even though a very small parcel, acceptance ofland makes more sense than receiving the small amount of fees in lieu. With reeard to Lacv's Run Subdivision, Pacha moved. O'Learv seconded to acceDt land (0.7 acres) in lieu offees to satisfy the Neiehborhood ODen SDace reQuirement. Unanimous. ELK RUN: The developer is willing to give more land than is required. It is staffs recommendation to accept this land as this property will eventually adjoin Peninsula Park, and provides more property immediately adjacent to the Iowa River. With reeard to the Elk Run Subdivision. Pacha moved. Raaz seconded, with one abstention (O'Leary). to acceDt land in lieu of fees to satisfv the Neiehborhood ODen SDace reQuirement. Unanimous. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR CITY PARK ANNIVERSARY SUB-COMMITTEE AS PROPOSED BY COMMISIONER RAAZ: Raaz has submitted a proposal to the Commission to form a subcommittee to coordinate and implement a Centennial Celebration for City Park. Trueblood informed committee that there is a group already in place that includes Patty Mott, long time resident of Iowa City, Barb Coffey, Iowa City Document Services Director, and Recreation staff. The Commission members were invited to either join the existing group or form a subcommittee. It is Trueblood's suggestion that there be only one group rather than two. Raaz agreed with Trueblood's suggestion. Commission Members Raaz, Pacha, O'Leary, and Loomer will join the existing group. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 19 at 2:00 p.m. Moran will send out information regarding this meeting. Trueblood noted that there is no budget for this celebration, however, the City Manager expressed that some funding would be made available. The City Manager and Trueblood will meet to determine specifics. CIP AND OPERATING BUDGET UPDATE: Trueblood reviewed summary information provided to Commission that indicates the City Manager's recommendations and how they compare to the Commission priorities voted on at the December 2005 meeting. ------_..,-----_._~--------~--- -..-. Parks and Recreation Commission January 11, 2006 Page 6 of 7 Items on the list that were discussed are as follows: Item #2. Iowa River Trail Bridge-Rocky Shore to Peninsula: Trueblood indicated that the City Manager and CIP Committee support this project; however, the City Council does not consider it to be a high priority at this time. Item #5. Sand Prairie Enhancement and Preservation-Phase I: The City Manager has asked Trueblood to submit a proposal to him for Phase I of this project. Item #7. Skate Park Restrooms: This project had been moved up on the priority list due to some interest on the part of at least one Council member, but it remains unfunded at this time. Staff will be looking at the possibility of placement of portable restrooms in the meantime. Trueblood also addressed other projects of interest with the Commission. With regard to the operating budget, Trueblood announced that the request for an additional Y. time position for Mercer Maintenance has been approved in the City Manager's proposed budget. This will allow one % time person to advance to a full-time position. COMMISSION TIME Pacha requested that the list of Commission members be e-mailed to him. He also requested that the packets be three-hole punched before sending to the Commission Members. Tammy Neumann will be sure to do this in the future. Raaz announced that the disc golf course is moving forward. Trueblood referred Commission members to the e-mail from Jeff Harper that was included in their packets with the updates. CHAIR'S REPORT: No report. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Trueblood noted that the Grant Wood gymnasium is moving along very nicely. Moran and Trueblood toured the facility recently. Recreation staff will be scheduling events in this gym in the near future. At this time the Recreation Division's 3rd_6'h grade basketball program that starts on January 28 has been scheduled at Grant Wood. Trueblood mentioned to Commission that Pam Michaud will be attending the February meeting to present her proposal for a small dog park at College Green. Information item only. ADJOURNMENT: Moved bv Pacha, seconded bv O'Leary to adiourn. Unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. Parks and Recreation Commission January 11, 2006 Page 7 of 7 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2006 TERM NAME EXPIRES 1/11 2/8 3/8 4/12 5/10 6/7 7/12 8/9 9/13 10/11 11/8 12/13 Craig Gustaveson 111/07 X Judith Kliuk 1/1/07 OlE Margaret . Loomer ill/08 X Ryau O'Learv 1/ 1/06 X Matt Pacha ill/09 X Jerry Raaz 1/1/08 X Phil Reisetter 1/ 1/09 OlE Johu 1/1/07 Watsou X Johu Westefeld 1/ 1/06 X KEY: X= 0= OlE = NM= LQ= Preseut Absent AbsentlExcused No meeting No meeting due to lack of quorum Not a Member .__._-------------,-~.~--_._---~._----_.._--,-~--------"--.-- Of[] MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HAll PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Terry Smith, Ann Freerks, Bob Brooks, Don Anciaux, Beth Koppes, Dean Shannon MEMBERS EXCUSED: Wally Plahutnik STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Walz, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Schnittjer RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCil: Recommended approval by a vote of 6-0, (Plahutnik absent) REZ05-00023. a rezoning of 9.72-acres of land located west of Foster Road from Interim Development-Residential (ID-RS) to Planned Development Housing-low Density Single-Family (OPD-5) with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan allowing the modification of the RS-5 requirements to allow 2 (two) 12-unit multi-family buildings with exterior building material consisting of brick, stone and fiber cement board siding, a building height of up to 47-feet and up to five parking spaces permitted in the area between the building and the street subject to resolution of the turning radius issue being resolved prior to consideration by City Council. Recommended approval by a vote of 6-0, (Plahutnik absent) ANN06-00001, the annexation of .35-acre of property located on Camp Cardinal Road CAll TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEM: REZ05-00023, discussion of an application submitted by Westcott Partners for a rezoning from Interim Development Residential (ID-RS) zone to low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD-5) with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan for 9.72-acres of property located on the west side of Foster Road north of White Oak Place. Walz said the property, located in the North District, contained sensitive environmental features including regulated slopes, Iowa River Corridor floodway and woodlands. The applicant had requested a Planned Development Overlay zone to allow clustering of two (2) twelve-unit multi-family builidngs which would provide minimal impact on the slope and woodland features. The applicant had requested waivers to allow multi-family development in an RS-5 zone with additional waivers to allow buildings that exceeded the 35-foot limit in an RS-5 zone and to allow parking between the building and the street due to the grade of the sight. Due to a steep ravine that cut through the property, two-thirds of the site could not be developable or provided with sewer; Staff estimated that at most 8 or 10 single-family homes could be built on the remaining property. The applicant would be able to achieve a considerable density bonus through the use of a planned development overlay. Staff and the developer had worked closely to achieve a plan and building design that would be compatible with the surrounding mostly single-family neighborhood. The proposed buildings would be three stories high from the front and four stories high from the back. The prominent elevation of the site a Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 2 top a knoll would make the buildings quite prominent along Foster Road. The buildings would be highly visible from the adjacent single-family lots in Oakmont Estates from late fall through early spring when there would not be leaves on the trees. The tree buffer that currently existed on the property would remain. The developer had submitted a building design that addressed concerns related to both the height and architectural compatibiiity and had used a variety of building materials including brick, stone and fiber cement siding to emphasize the horizontal aspects and minimize the vertical aspects of the buildings. This shouid help de-emphasize the height. The developer had wrapped the design features all the way around each building so there would be architectural treatment to all sides of the building. The rear of the buildings would be visible from the single-family lots on White Oak Place. The developer had agreed to dedicate a considerable portion of the siope to the .City as park land which wouid potentially allow for the development of a low impact trail which would follow the contours of the slope. The Parks and Recreation Commission had reviewed the proposed dedication and voted to accept it. The amount of land to be dedicated would exceed the required .23-acres of land, would preserve the valuable environmental feature of the woodland and slopes and would provide public access to a historically significant scenic view of the Iowa River. Walz said the proposal to cluster the multi-family buildings in accordance with the Sensitive Areas Reguiation was desirable in this location as was the issue of neighborhood compatibility in regards to scale and the design of the proposed buildings. The applicant had addressed those issues through the use of design and building materials that minimized the visual impact of the height of the buildings and the architectural detail on the side and rear elevations of the buildings. All deficiencies noted in the Staff Report had been resolved with the exception of the ability of the Fire Department to get a fire engine in to the front circular drive of the proposed development. Walz said Staff recommended approval of REZ05-00023, a rezoning of 9.72-acres of land from ID-RS to OPD-5 with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan allowing the modification of the RS-5 requirements to allow two (2) 12- unit multi-family buildings with exterior building materiai consisting of brick, stone and fiber cement board siding, a building height of up to 47-feet and up to five parking spaces permitted in the area between the building and the street subject to resolution of the turning radius issue being resolved prior to consideration by City Council. Miklo said the applicant, City Engineer, Fire Marshall and Staff planned to meet to try to resolve the turning radius issue. It might be possible to achieve without adjusting the design of the driveway or an adjustment for the driveway might be needed. Koppes asked what was the distance between the rear of the proposed building and the back yards in White Oak neighborhood. Schnit~er said it was 59-feet on one side and 153-feet to the south. Brooks asked if the two adjoining subdivisions had dedicated any land to public open space. Miklo said in Oakmont Estates to the south, Outlot A would be dedicated to the City. The area to the north, Mackinaw Village, had chosen not to dedicate the area adjacent to the river, it would still be private open space. Brooks asked if Mackinaw Village anticipated any type of trail along the river? Miklo said the goal was to get a trail along the river although it would take some cooperation from the Mackinaw Village property owners. Miklo indicated on the overhead map where the public lands would be; where potential access to/from Foster Road to the parcel would be; and where the rock outcropping with a scenic view was located. He said the area would be pretty rugged, Staff didn't anticipate a paved trail but a hiking trail. Brooks said he liked the proposed style and that the trees along the street would help mitigate some of the feeling of the building's height and location on top of the knoll. Koppes asked if there was any concern regarding privacy with the proposed number of windows on the side of the buildings that faced the houses. Mikio said given the distance there was not. Walz said there had been more of a concern of avoiding a blank fa<;ade on the sides of the buildings. Miklo said the original plan had had very few windows and detail on the side. Even though the front of the buildings were Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 3 quite elaborate and had a lot of detail, Staff had requested the windows on the sides. Driving up Foster Road, the sides of the buildings would be much more visible than the front. Freerks said she thought the windows helped, especially in the four-story area. She said the use of the brick, stone and fiber cement board siding would give the building a quality appearance and help minimize the perception of height. Brooks said he liked the combination of the materials as well, it would help the buildings to blend in with what was in the area. Public discussion was opened. Larrv Schnittier, MMS Consultants, said he was there to answer any questions the Commission had. The developer requested a vote during the meeting if possible. They'd been working with the Engineering Department and intended to work with the Fire Marshall to resolve the turning radius issue as well. Freerks asked how many bedrooms the units would have. Schnittjer said there would be two (2) two- bedroom units and two (2) three-bedroom units on each floor. There was more than adequate parking. They'd requested the additional five parking spaces for visitors in front to allow convenient drop-off and deliveries. They would be condominium units. It was planned to commence construction on the south building this year and complete the second building next year. Schnittjer said the buildings would not be quite as high as the knoll was, they planned to remove a portion of the knoll to try to lower it otherwise the loop drive would be too steep. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Smith made a motion to approve REZ05-00023, a rezoning of 9.72-acres of land from ID-RS to OPD-5 with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan allowing the modification of the RS-5 requirements to allow two (2) 12-unit multi-family buildings with exterior building material consisting of brick, stone and fiber cement board siding, a building height of up to 47-feet and up to five parking spaces permitted in the area between the building and the street subject to resolution of the turning radius issue being resolved prior to consideration by City Council. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Plahutnik absent). ANNEXATION ITEM: ANN06-00001, discussion of a City initiated application to annex .35-acres of land located on Camp Cardinal Road adjacent to Cardinai Ridge Subdivision. Miklo said in 2005 the City had severed approximately 194-acres of property in the northwest corner. The area gravity flowed into Coralville so it would not be easily sewered by Iowa City sewer system. As part of that annexation a small portion of Camp Cardinal Road had been de-annexed. Coralville was in the process of de-annexing that section and Iowa City was proposing to annex it. The property would be zoned OSA-5 consistent with the remainder of the Cardinal Ridge Subdivision. Staff recommended approval of ANN06-00001, an annexation of .35-acres of property located on Camp Cardinal Road. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve ANN06-00001. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Plahutnik absent). OTHER ITEMS: Shannon requested Staff to investigate the current status of a house located at the northwest corner of Lewis Place and Foster Road, the Bud Lewis home. An arrangement had been rnade to allow the drive to Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 4 the Lewis property to remain open until such time as Mr. Lewis no longer lived there. Recently Mr. Lewis had passed away but the drive remained open. Would now be the appropriate time to resolve that the driveway remained open onto the arterial street? Miklo said he would check the file and report back to the Commission. Commission Work Program: Miklo said Staff would like to discuss the priority of the items on the Commission's work program. He said currently the work program includes: 1.) Subdivision Regulations, 2.) Central Planning District, 3.) Southeast Planning District, 4.) CB-2 standards, 5.) Review of Sign Ordinance, 6.) Investigate methods of protecting landmark trees and 7.) Update Open Space Plan/Ordinance. Staff hoped to have a draft of the Subdivision Regulations to the Commission in the spring and then staff would proceed on one of the district plans. There had been some interest expressed by the Council to pass over the Central District and go to the Southeast District. Currently the Central Planning District, which basically includes the neighborhoods surrounding downtown, had been on the work list for quite some time. Miklo suggested that when the Commission reviewed the District they might want to break it down into smaller sub areas. There were some organized neighborhood groups in the district. There were different issues that would be important for different areas. The same had been done with the Southwest District. He said the Southeast District (Court Street on the north, Highway 6 on the south, First Avenue on the west) included issues associated with the industrial park areas and residential development. The area contained railroad access which was important for some industries. It had been the City's policy to reserve the area north of the railroad for future industrial development. There was interest for additional residential development in the area south of American Legion Road so it would be a key issue to determine how to get a transition or a buffer between those two areas. Capital improvements would be required to bring sewer and arterial street access into that area. Miklo said that the existing mobile home parks might resist annexation into the city, but if the city were to grow to the east they would have to be annexed in at some point. In response to a question from the Commission about staff time, Miklo said that it took anywhere from one to two years to complete a District Plan depending on the complexity of the neighborhoods. Staff collected data, had meetings with property owners, interest groups in the neighborhood and community- wide meetings before they even started a draft of the Plan. He said the number of rezoning, subdivision and Board of Adjustment cases affected the amount of time staff could devote to the district planning process, because the same staff members were responsible for long term and current planning. Before Staff had started the Zoning Code review, the Central District and the Southeast District had already been identified in that order of priority. The Northwest District and the North Corridor District were the only other areas where a district plan had not been completed. They were less of a priority because the Northwest District included the area covered by the Cardinal Ridge Master Plan or was owned by the University. The North Corridor located north of Interstate 80 would require some major sewer upgrades and annexation. Smith said based on the current development of the Central District, potential issues over the next few years seemed to lie more with the Southeast District so the Commission should try to address those first. Freerks said she could see both sides of the coin, but there were issues with the Central District as had been evidenced when they'd tried to eliminate the CB-2 zone and the issues that had arisen with Paglia is' Pizza and their potential for future development. There were issues regarding potential redevelopment and neighborhood preservation and improvement within the Central District and it would be easy to temporarily step over them. She remembered when they'd passed over the Central District to do the Southwest District and it had been put aside again when the Commission had done the Zoning Code review. There were neighborhood groups who were poised and ready, they had been told that the Central District would be reviewed next. It would be more than just particular neighborhood issues but they would need to consider redevelopment of some areas. However, for areas that needed planning and didn't have anything there currently, such as the Southeast District, it would be an easier area to make a plan and not Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 5 to have to deal with the more complex issues of redevelopment. Freerks said that she did not want to loose tract of a comprehensive approach to the whole city. She said that we should remember that growth in the outlying districts also affects the Central District as much of the traffic generated by new development is directed into the Central District. Freerks said she hated to put aside the Central District again. Brooks said he felt before the Commission reviewed the Central District, they would need to review the CB-2 zone. Koppes and Freerks said the items overlapped each other and should be done at the same time. Brooks said he was concerned about the potential for conflicts between the industrial and residential development in the Southeast District and not allowing the situation to perpetuate itself as had happened with Village Green and the issues of the neighborhood, the noise and inadequate buffer between residential and industrial. He did not wish to see a situation occur in which the City would not be able to react quickly enough to prevent that same type of situation. It was concerning with the area south of the railroad tracks being industrial and to the north was residential with expectations of a nice quiet residential environment. Freerks asked Miklo if the Southeast District Plan might take less time than some of the other districts. Miklo said that was hard to say but there did seem to be a limited number of issues to be addressed in the area. There would be the industrial/residential juxtaposition and some possible issues around the Sycamore Mall area but he didn't see any other significant issues at this point. Freerks said she envisioned the Central District taking a tremendous amount of time and effort which she felt would be necessary given the complexity and diversity of the area. She was very hesitant to say 'skip over' the Central District again because she wanted the Council to be aware that there currently were and would be a lot of issues. If the Commission agreed to delay reviewing the Central District Plan once more, then the Commission really needed to commit to reviewing it very soon. She was willing to agree to reviewing the Southeast District first because it should take less time and there would be some opportunities to iron problems out before they occurred. Brooks said he realized that it was a budgetary issue that limited Staff to a certain level of commitment which created part of the problem of priorities and Staff availability for the Commission. Potentially they were looking at 2+ years before being able to finish the Central District Plan. Freerks said she felt they'd regret their decision if it took that long to finish, she hoped it would take less time. Brooks said he felt the Central Planning District would be a rather protracted project, he envisioned that 18- or even 24-months was not being unrealistic. Before they even tackled the Southeast District it could be 24-months and then 6 additional months of time. Freerks said it had been six-years since they'd talked about the Central Planning District. Brooks said to him it was a staffing problem as the same staff that did long range planning also had to deal with current protects, he was well aware of the length of time that the Central District review had been waiting. He felt the other pending tasks such as the sign ordinance would not be easy and would take a considerable amount of Staff's time. Freerks asked if it would be possible to notify the neighborhood associations and interest groups as to the Commission's work proram; she was aware that there were people who'd been told and were expecting that the Central Planning District would be reviewed next. She said that it was an issue when the Northside Historic District was defeated. Occasionally they'd received inquiries as to "when". Freerks said if they reviewed the Southeast District before the Central District, she didn't want to see anything else come before it again, there were too many important issues. The CB-2 zone should be done at the same time as the Central District. Koppes and Brooks agreed that the Central District and the CB-2 zone were interlocked issues. Schnittjer said he appreciated the opportunity to listen to the Commission's discussion. He wished to share that the Industrial Park in the Southeast district was filling up rapidly. They were currently working Planning and Zoning Commission January19, 2006 Page 6 on plans for more warehouses in that area, but once it was full where was the City going to go? The City needed that industrial tax base. Regarding the remainder of the priorities, Koppes said she'd prefer to have a review of the landmark trees undertaken prior to a review of the sign ordinance. Freerks said she'd be willing to have a review of the landmark trees undertaken first as well. Brooks said he felt the sign ordinance would present itself again and become an issue. The Commission agreed that their work program priorities would be: 1) Subdivision Regulations, 2) Southeast Planning District and 3) Central Planning District coupled wi review of CB-2 Standards. The priority of the remaining items on the list would be revisited next year. Miklo said that it was a good idea to review the status of the work program annually and to adjust it as necessary. Brooks said to summarize their discussion, the Commission realized that because of the limitations on Staff's time and availability that the above listed items potentially could take the Commission into 2008 and that the Commission didn't feel that that was the most ideal situation for encouraging and promoting economic development and growth within the community. Perhaps there needed to be more attention given to providing staffing levels and availability that would allow the Commission to move ahead in a more expeditious and timely manner to get the Commission's identified priorities completed. Brooks said an excellent point had been made in that if the industrial area filled up there would be a real pressure to do something. If the Commission was not poised to give some guidance they would be reacting instead of leading the process. Freerks agreed that those points should be clearly made to the Council. Brooks agreed to attend the meeting when the Council discusses the Commission's work program priorities. Miklo distributed the list of upcoming rotations for attending City Council meetings. CONSIDERATION OF 1/5/06 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Anciaux seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0, (Plahutnik absent). ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Freerks made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Koppes seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0, (Plahutnik absent). The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcd/minutes/p&z12006/01-19-06.doc Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Attendance Record 2006 FORMAL MEETING Term . Name Exoires 1/5 1/19 D. Anciaux 05/06 X X B. Brooks 05/10 X X A. Freerks 05/08 X X I E.Koppes 05/07 OlE X I W Plahutnik 05/10 X OlE D.Shannon 05/08 X X T. Smith 05/06 X X INFORMAL MEETING Term Name Exoires D. Anciaux 05/06 B. Brooks 05/10 A. Freerks 05/08 E.Koppes 05/07 W Plahutnik 05/10 I D.Shannon 05/08 T.Smith 05/06 I Key: I X = Present 0 = Absent I OlE = Absent/Excused i N/M= No Meeting I I I I i I I I I I i z.-o:z..O~ IPlli, MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 11, 2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - IOWA CITY, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, Michelle Shelangouski, Ned Wood, Michael Wright. STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek, Doug Boothroy OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Drea, Lillian Davis, CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Leigh called the meeting to order at 5:02 ELECTION OF OFFICERS: MOTION: Wright moved to nominate Leigh as chairperson. Alexander seconded the motion. The motion passed with a 5:0 vote. MOTION: Leigh moved to nominate Alexander as vice-chairperson. Wood seconded the motion. The motion passed with a 5:0 vote. CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 14, 2005 MINUTES Wright noted that Denis Keitel was mistakenly added to the list of members present. Instead of Denis Keitel it should have been Ned Wood. MOTION: Alexander moved to approve the minutes with the proposed correction. Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed with a 5:0 vote. APPEAL: AP05:00001: Discussion .of an appeal submitted by David Drea of a decision of the building official that a corner lot requires two front yards. Walz made a correction to the memorandum submitted. On page 2, under the application of lot and yard lines, second paragraph, second line, instead of front yard line it should be front lot line. Walz said that the appeal is considered under the old zoning code. She said the regulations being challenged reads: "If lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along all streets." (14-60-2B) She noted that in applying the front yard regulations a first relevant question is if the lot fronts in two streets. She said that in this particular case the lot fronts on two streets. Next question is if the applicant's property is required to have a front yard. She said that all lots in the RS-8 zone are required to provide a front yard of 20 feet, and therefore this lot is required to provide a front yard on both streets. Walz noted that the applicant's attorney has used the definition of front lot line to make an argument that on any lot there can be only one front yard. She said that this argument substitutes the definition for the regulation. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 2, 2006 Page 2 Walz said that a front lot line is the first line of reference on any lot. All other lines and boundaries are derived from the front lot line. The front lot line determines the rear lot line, which is set opposite to it. The definitions do not take the case any further than this. She said that yard lines can not be drawn or determined from the definitions alone, and that regulations need to be used. Walz noted that yard lines are derived from lot lines, but they do not establish yards. She mentioned that yards may only be determined by referring to the code. She exemplified by saying that in the downtown district, and some commercial areas there are no requirements for rear or side yards. She said the regulations for the RS-8 zone state that the front and rear yard requirements are 20 feet, and the side yard requirements are 5 feet. She noted the specific property is located on a corner. She added that the general requirements dictate that if lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along all streets (14-6Q-2B). Therefore, she said that the property in discussion needs to have a front yard on both streets. She added that the yard line on Walnut Street steps back to 20 feet. Walz said that the requirement for front yard along the second street does not change the designated front lot line because there can only be one front lot line. She said that it dictates that the yard requirements for the front yard, which is 20 feet in the RS-8 zone, be met along both streets. Walz said that the applicant would argue that the provisions must be construed if possible so that effect Is giving to all provisions. She said that one code provision should not be interpreted in such a way that it renders other provisions meaningless. Walz added that in the case of ambiguous or conflicting provisions, the most specific rule prevails. She said that the appellant argues that the definitions in the code are more specific than the regulations. She said that the definitions are the general, and yard is establishment only takes the shape and size through the specific requirement in the code. Walz said that in this specific case the requirements are those for a corner lot in the RS-8 zone. She said that the requirement for two front yards for corner lots had been applied throughout Iowa City for more than forty (40) years. She said that the regulations had consistently held that where a front yard is required, corner lots or lots fronting on two (2) or more streets must provide a front yard along both streets. Walz stated that the staff believes that the building official's interpretation that the zoning code requires a front yard along both Walnut Street and Webster Street is correct and should stand, and the appeal submitted by Mr. Drea be denied. Miklo said that the Doub Boothroy, the Building Official, was also present to address the Board. Douo Boothrov, the Building Official, said that the decision the Board would make as to whether or not an error was made when the code was enforced regarding the specific property. He said that he does not consider it an error for several reasons: 1) The City of Iowa City had consistently, by practice and enforcement, applied this particular standard requirement. He noted that over the past forty (40) years the standard had always been applied. He added that the situation is not in any way specific to the property in discussion, but is a common issue within neighborhoods. 2) Over the years there have been many cases brought in front of the Board of Adjustment to provide relief from the two (2) front yard requirement, but the Board had never called the regulation into question. 3) He noted that he was a co-author of the code being discussed, and as a result of his experience serving as the Secretary of the Board of Adjustment between 1975-1983, he believes that the special exception should be used to alleviate some circumstances, where it can be shown that a reduction of the front yard is warranted. Public Hearino Opened Lillian Davis. 920 South Dubuque Street, attorney representing Mr. Drea, distributed handouts and pictures in support of her presentation. Davis said that the building official mentioned that he had first- hand knowledge regarding the legislative intent of the code, and he indicated that he has first-hand knowledge regarding the legislative intent regarding the special exception process, and the option for the City of Iowa City. She said that the Board is confronted with an appeal. Davis said that for the Board of Adjustment there are application forms available online, none of which is for an appeal. She noted that this might be the reason why Mr. Drea was handed an application for a special exception, when he was Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 2, 2006 Page 3 actually filing an appeal. She added that it is clear from Mr. Boothroy's presentation that the City of Iowa City had always done it "this way", however, the City's own definitions produce the results that will be presented. Davis said that the City had recently changed its definitions as part of the new Zoning Code, and the new definitions are more likely to result in the position argued. However, she said, the old definitions do not. She noted that the issue raised is an appeal, and not a special exception, therefore the Board needs to determine if there was a mistake on the part of Building Official, and not if all the standards for a special exception are met. Davis said that there might have not been any appeals filed on this matter for several reasons: it is expensive ($300) to file an application, and it is also expensive to hire someone to do the analysis and present the argument in front of the Board. She noted that the issue being presented is narrow and not a request to decide how the term frontage is going to be limited, or that the definition of double frontage line precludes a corner lot from having two lot frontages. The issue simply regards whether or not there was an error. Davis said that the first point to be considered is whether or not the area in discussion is a front lot. She said that where Walnut Street comes east, immediately north to the specific property it takes a little jag and narrows. She said that the building was constructed in 1900 and predates the zoning code. She said that when the street went through it took up the yard for the house. She said that it is a peculiar lot, non-conforming use that was grandfathered in. She said that "all conforming and non-conforming uses! structures shall be treated as though they were established on a conforming lot." Davis said that in the general description of the property, the view from Webster Street shows a fairly sizable front yard. She added that where the street came through, what should have been the side yard was truncated dramatically. She said that they agreed that the provisions of the zoning code prior to December 2005 applied to this matter. Davis said that they generally agree On the rules of construction, as to what rules apply when there is confusion. She said that there is an order on how the rules should apply. She noted that the front lot line determines the rear lot line, and all other lot lines are determined in relations to those. She mentioned that this can only be achieved by applying the definitions and the specific directions in the definitions. She said that the disagreement regards the fact that the specific definitions are general statements. She added that the section of the code requiring that if lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along all streets (14-6Q-28) is listed under General Yard Requirements, and therefore is a general rule informed by the details set up in the definitions. Davis said that it was suggested that the definitions were taken out of the context, but she noted she was very methodical in determining the lines, following the step-by-step requirements of the definitions. She said that at the beginning of the definitions section it is noted that "as used in this chapter the following definitions shall apply," She added that the word "shall" is used, and according to the rules of word construction the word "shall" is always mandatory, and therefore we are required to use the definitions set up in that section of the code. Davis said that when there appears to be a conflict the board needs to determine whether there is a way to reconcile both of those provisions so that meaning is given to both. She mentioned that the statement that there have to be two (2) front yards applies when there is a double frontage lot. She said that the authors of the code might have meant something else, but they did not write something else. She asked the city staff to restate the City's position regarding the statutory construction. Holecek said that the city's position is that they are reconciled by applying the 14-6Q-28 to require front yards along both streets frontages. Davis asked if there is a conflict would it be appropriate to apply the first test that the two could be reconciled before deciding there is an ambiguity. Holecek said that the City's position is clear that the definitions are not necessarily the regulations. Holocek added that while the definitions give meaning and body to the regulations, the specific regulation requiring a front yard set- back along all streets is the most specific, and that is how all the issues are reconciled. Davis asked if there is agreement on the order in which the different rules of statutory construction are to be applied. Davis said that the first rule is if there seems to be a conflict it should be seen if there are Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 2, 2006 Page 4 ways to give effect to both that does not render either one meaningless. She noted that the next, more specific rule takes effect as an exception of the general rule. Davis said that several definitions were changed through the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance. She said that the definition for a front line lot is the same as used before with the addition of "on double frontage lots there are two front lot lines", which in itself supports Mr. Drea's position. She added that that there is an option given for the owner to choose which line is to be the front lot line. She said that lot line side and street side are new provisions. She noted that there is no definition for "yard", but instead for "setback areas". She mentioned the City had changed the Code to make it very clear, and with examples. Davis said that the pictures taken from the Webster Street showing the backyard shows the limited space between the house and the street. She noted that it defies logic to suggest that the paved area is the front yard of the property. She added that the fact that the code has the provision that non-conforming uses should be grandfathered in, the board would have to take the north line of the house to determine what the yard is on that side of the house. She added that more than half of the area is not paved. She said that if the entire front yard would be taken into consideration Mr. Drea does not have more than 50% pavement. Davis said that no credit was given for the area of the front yard beyond the 20 foot front line, which is not paved. She said that the ratio of paved area is 15%, far from the 50% maximum. Davis said that Mr. Drea was cited for having more than 50% paving. She stated that there is an exception for side yard limitations, for parking for two family dwellings, which exist on the specific property. She added that there are no limitations providing parking in the rear yard. Davis said that even if the Board agrees that it is a front yard, it defies logic, for the code to not treat it as a non-conforming use. She noted that the house should not be considered as paved area, and credit should be given for what is not paved. She said that the City was not happy regarding the pavement of right-of-way, and that matter is not being appealed. She said that there were people testifying at the October meeting that putting the pavement in was definiteiy an improvement. Davis said that looking at the City regulations it should be clear that there is a front yard on Webster Street. Miklo said that the applicant contends that this is a nonconforming use on a nonconforming lot. He said that the lot conforms to the dimensional requirements in the RS-8 zone, and that it is a conforming use since duplexes are allowed in the area. He said that it is a non-conforming structure which violates the 20 foot set-back because it was built before there were any setback requirements, and that non-conforming structures cannot be expanded to increase their non-conformity. He said that treating the two front yards separately, the paved area would go over the 50% accepted paving. Davis said that she meant to say that it was a non-conforming structure, and not a non-conforming use. Public hearinq ciosed Wright said that he read the documents, the appeal, the staff memo, and the City Code and the statement that if lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along all streets seems clear. He added that the lot requirement in the RS-8 zone minimum yard front is 20 feet, that it is a corner lot has been established and that if a lot fronts on two or more streets it is required to have two front yards, is again a clear statement showing the intent of the code. Wright added that he agrees with the logic exercised by the Building Official. He said that there is no misinterpretation in applying the code as is written. Alexander said that she agrees with Wright's statement. She added that Miss Davis had done an admirable job in trying to find a way for this to fit for her client, but the code provisions seem to be very clear. Leigh said that the interpretation of the Code that the specific property is a corner lot, and it has to provide two front yards cannot be contested. She added that the property lists two addresses, one on each street. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 2, 2006 Page 5 Wood noted that it is a corner lot, and by 14-60-2B lots fronting on two streets have two front yards. He said that he will support this position. Shelangouski will also support this position. She noted that the Building Official did apply the code correctly as is written. MOTION: Alexander made a motion regarding AP05:00001: an appeal submitted by David Drea of a decision of the building official that a corner lot requires two front yards, that the building official's decision be uphold. Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed with a 5:0 vote. SPECIAL EXCEPTION: EXC05-00016 Reconsideration of an application submitted by David Drea for a special exception to reduce the front yard from 20 feet to 0 feet to allow paving a greater area than normally permitted in the Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) zone at 920 Webster Street! 601 Walnut Street. Miklo said that the code requires that no more than 50% of the front yard be impervious surface. He added that the applicant was cited for paving more than 50% of the front yard adjacent to Walnut Street, as well as the City property contained in the right-of-way. He said that the Board had granted a special exception to the applicant at the October 2005 meeting, to allow more than 50% of the yard to be paved, but required that paving within the visual triangle and the right-of-way be removed, ieaving approximately 55% of the yard still paved. Miklo stated that the applicant is required to remove the paving from the right- of-way regardlessof the Board's decision. Miklo said that the applicant wants the Board to reconsider the provision that paving be removed from the vision triangle. He noted that the vision triangle is an area free from structures meant to allow clear site distance near an intersection of two traveled ways. Another concern regarding the vision triangle refers to the demarcation of the street from the private property; as a result of the paving is not very clear where the street ends, especially at different times of the day due to lighting. Miklo said that there are also aesthetic concerns regarding the appearance of the residential neighborhood, and concerns regarding the provision of permeable areas where rain water can be absorbed. Staff recommends that the previous decision of the Board to allow some reduction in the front yard, but requiring the pavement within the vision triangle be removed be uphold. Davis said that they withdraw the request for reconsideration. OTHER: Miklo said that the commissioners have been provided with a new copy of the Zoning Code which would be used for further meetings. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:25 P.M. s:/pcd/minulesfboa/2006/01-11.06.doc Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 2, 2006 Page 6 Board of Adjustment I Attendance Record I 2006 I i I , Term I I Name Expires 01/11 Karen Leigh 01/01/07 X I I Carol Alexander 01/01/08 X Michael Wright 01/01/09 X . I Ned Wood 01/01/10 X M. Shelangouski 01/01/11 X Key: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused , NM = No Meeting ! , I I I