HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-02 TranscriptionPage 1
ITEM 2. PROCLAMATION.
a) County School Week in Johnson County — second week in August
Hayek: (reads proclamation)
Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is Rex Brandstatter, representing the Johnson
County Historical Society. (applause)
Brandstatter: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and uh, City Councilors. It's a pleasure to be here this
evening, uh, from the Johnson County Historical Society. Uh, we are visiting all
of the governments in Johnson County and you folks are first, and it's a pleasure
to be here to tell you about this. Uh, I did not have the pleasure of, uh, attending a
one -room schoolhouse. If you did, uh, I certainly can't tell you anything about it.
Uh, I'd like to remember it. I don't know that I'd want it reenacted today. Uh,
Mary and I were talking earlier about some of the clothing that the people wore,
and it's just the clothing that they had. They wouldn't have been in the day to sit
in a one -room schoolhouse, uh, but those were the challenges that they faced, and
our one, uh, our four -day celebration here is a remembrance of that, uh, we're
going to have programs at the, uh, Iowa City - Johnson County Senior Center.
We'll be at the Johnson County Historical Society Museum on Quarry Road.
We'll be at the, uh, Clear- Creek -Amana High School, and uh, we just think we're
going to have a wonderful turnout. Our barn tour, which is our annual ... our
annual, uh, biggest event of the year, and it's all signed up. If you'd like to join
and get in on some of these things, I urge you to do that. Anyone out there,
excuse me, call the Johnson County Historical Society and it'd be a pleasure to
have you there. So thank you so much, uh, Mayor and Council.
Hayek: Thanks, Rex, and thanks for all you do for the Historical Society.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 2
ITEM 4. COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA).
Hayek: This is the opportunity at each City Council meeting for members of the audience
to address the Council on items that are not on the agenda. So if there's
something you'd like to bring to our attention that is not on tonight's agenda, we
invite you to step forward and sign in, uh, please give us your name and limit your
comments to five minutes or less.
Cohen: Good evening, everyone. I'm Leah Cohen, and I'm here on behalf of Bo James. 1
have a restaurant /bar downtown and a large group of other restaurant /bar owners
from downtown. And I just wanted to kind of explain to you a little bit, you had
gotten in your packet this week some correspondence from the Partnership for
Alcohol Safety on some recommendations, um, that were put forth from that
particular organization, and I wanted to give you a little background on that. And
let you know that that basically came from bar owners downtown, restaurant/bar
owners. Large variety of, um, ones down there, pretty much supported by almost
everyone, except a few, who we think are problems yet. And, um, basically what
we found in this year since the ordinance has come into effect is that there are
certain individuals who are going to work around the ordinance, and that's being
accomplished through the exemptions. Um, the 50% rule is one that you can get,
um, an exemption if you have over 50% food and, for instance, a Takanami that
you may pay $4 or $5 for a drink, um, they may barely make that because of their
drinks being higher priced, where other place that you may be having `dollar you
call it' will go quite high in their sales of food because they're only charging a
dollar for a drink and they're getting a cover charge. So that just gives you a little
idea of that aspect of it. The other part that is really becoming a problem, and I
think we're going to see major problems this fall is the exemption that is being
allowed for new owners of establishments. Um, we have one bar that, um, is
under new ownership, um, but still being pretty currently managed by past, um,
that has been given an exemption for six months that is the ... the young hangout
for everyone after 10:00 at night. Um, we have been going through the, um,
police reports here, and the police reports from the University gives you a pretty
clear picture of where the problems are and what's been happening with this.
Um, we have another, um, large bar downtown that is in fact I think it's tonight
that is getting a liquor license and going to open their kitchen, and will be allowed
an exemption for six months, again, due to the same thing that goes on in the
ordinance. So what has happened it's really presented an un, um, just real
unequal playing field for restaurant /bars downtown, and I hear almost every day, I
get phone calls or someone showing up, begging me to do something on this. So
what we did is we had many meetings and invited all kinds of people to these
meetings, and that's how we kind of came up with what we did for this
recommendation. We talked about a lot of things, um, biggest thing being that
exemptions are for food. So when you close a kitchen at 10:00 at night and you
have an exemption, it obviously is not for food. Um, but if that were a
requirement (mumbled) I don't mean to use Formosa, but for instance a Formosa
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 3
that has very expensive chefs on staff would need to keep a chef on. You know,
later. So, um, because of that, some of those things were not put into this
recommendation due to that, but we really feel at this point that the Council, the
21 went into effect, you know, we're all working with it downtown. I think that
the large majority of us have done a very good job of changing business plans, or
putting new ones together to get into what has happened. We know we've had
some closures, but what we have seen happen is some places are still getting away
with a lot. And we would like to see the ordinance tweaked so that this will no
longer be allowed, and what we would like Council to do at this point is to take
the time, get it on your calendar. We have in ten days we have the Greek coming
back, and I will tell you now they will be downtown partying. This ... patrols in
the neighborhood and downtown that we had last year, you're not going to see the
neighborhood problems this year if this continues, because they're going to be
back downtown. Um, I can already say I've talked to two business people on my
street, that we are seeing vandalism again. Um, with our piano, with a few things
that have happened down there already, urn ... that have been just in the last few
months ... with what's going on. So I am really encouraging Council, this is
coming from the restaurant/bars downtown, is where this is coming from. We are
really asking you to look at this, to get this ordinance tweaked, so that we do not
go backwards from where we're at. So I thank you.
Hayek: Thank you, Leah.
Bender: My name is Kelly Bender and I work for the University of Iowa. My position is a
long one, and it's called the Coordinator of Campus, Community Harm Reduction
Initiatives. Um, I coordinate the Partnership for Alcohol Safety. So I worked
with Leah and the bar owners in developing those recommendations, along with
some other people that are on our Legislative Policy and Solutions Committee of
the PAS. Um, so there's seven owners who represent 13 different bars and
restaurants, all, um, but one of which are downtown. So we felt really good about
representation. Our purpose was to really get, um, a diverse viewpoint about what
might work and what might not, um, and so we had a lot of conversation, went in
a lot of different directions before we got to the recommendations that we
finalized, um, and sent to you. Um, and so the purpose of those recommend -
dations, like Leah said, is to create a level playing field. Currently, um, a bar with
an exception certificate has a lot of financial incentive, um, to not do much about
underage access to alcohol. So that's ... there is incentive obviously not to sell
alcohol to a minor, um, because if they get caught with that, then the bar suffers
the consequence of that, as well as the server. But if a young person just has
alcohol, for instance, that's served in the pitcher and they're at the table and have
access to alcohol that way, and it's not sold directly to them, it's the young person
that has the consequence, um, and the bar doesn't have one. Um, and so they get
all the benefits of the sales, and none of the legal risks, and as long as, um, and
they're obviously attracting very large audiences, and so there's a lot of, um,
profit that comes with that. Um, so we're not against people being able to draw
large audiences of young people downtown. That was in fact the goal of having
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 4
the exception certificate is to be able to still have that possibility down there, but
we just want them to practice responsible alcohol sales and service. Um, that
prevent underage access and excessive drinking. Um, but this recommendation's
really more about underage access, which then is also connected to the excessive
drinking because that age group tends to drink quite a bit when they drink, even if
they drink less often than older people. Um, so ... let me see ... I think that is
basically all I wanted to make sure that we covered. Um, one of the things that
we've noticed and that we put in the recommendations that we would like, um,
when the 0.5 PAULA ratio if that's considered, is looked at, we'd like it to be
with a combination of Iowa City police and University of Iowa police data. Um,
University of Iowa police do a lot of bar checks, um, and if their data aren't
included, you're not getting a complete picture. Um, an example is since January
of 2011, there is one establishment that has had 92 kids charged with PAULA,
um, 67 of those were from University Police. So, it's important for you to get the
full picture when you're considering sort of the scope of the problem and we think
that's really important. I've talked with Chuck Green and David Visin at
University Police about formatting their PAULA report similar to Iowa City
Police so that it's an easier thing to compare, um, and to be able to look at ratios
and enforcement levels along with that, and they've agreed to do that. Um, so,
thank you very much for your time and we hope that you'll consider our
recommendations.
Hayek: Thank you, Kelly. Would anyone else like to address Council on items not on
tonight's agenda?
Geerdes: Good evening, um, my name is Greg Geerdes. My wife and myself and our five
kids live at 890 Park Place, which is the far southeast corner of what I like to call
"Mosquito Flats," better known as Parkview Terrace. Later on in tonight's
agenda there is a topic concerning a study on the proposed Taft Speedway
properties, so I don't want to talk about the study at this point in time, but I do
think at this point in time, uh, we should consider the whole idea of a levee and
whether or not that levee is something or not we want to pursue. In other words I
don't want to think, I don't want you to think that just because we're going to
have a study that we should automatically pursue building the levee. It's
important in my mind to look at what I think are the four real negatives on really
any levee, but especially the Taft Speedway levee. First thing I want to talk about
is the cost, the numbers that I've seen says the levee is going to cost somewhere
around $11.5 million. Price range, the information I have, is that about $3.8
million of that is going to come from City dollars, taxes paid by people of the City
of Iowa City. I think it was less than two years ago where there wasn't enough
money in the City to provide basic fire protection to main ... to man the north side
fire department, without raising taxes for that to happen. So I would encourage
you to think in terms of fiscal responsibility on that issue. Second issue comes
down to, I think, aesthetics. You've got a true crown jewel in the form of City
Park, which I don't think people appreciate the way it should be appreciated. It's
a beautiful city park, very close to downtown, very close to the highest population
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 5
density of any park that you can find virtually. And it's not something which I
think should be scared by having a levee constructed across from it. If anything
else, with the reconstruction of Hancher Auditorium, the reconstruction of the
Park Road bridge, now is a chance, an opportunity to enhance the aesthetics of
City Park, not detract from it. I was happy for the last two summers to see the
great use that the public is making of City Park in the form of the Shakespeare
Theater that's there. Hopefully you can see that as an opportunity to enhance the
greater downtown area, cause that really can and should be considered part of the
core of Iowa City. There's the campus. There's the downtown area, but there's
also City Park, and there's not enough being done to tie all those together. And,
um, I think we also should talk about the general idea of what's fair with the
levee. You know, is it fair for people on Taft Speedway who bought property,
knowing what the flood risks are, and being willing and able to assume those
risks, and who don't want the levee, contrasted to the people in the Idyllwild
development which bought without a levee, and they're now asking the public to
enhance their property values to the tune of about $12 million with a levee.
That's going to be subjecting the Taft Speedway residents, in my view, to an
unfair burden, certainly an infringement on their property rights. Lastly, before I
...before I sit down, it occurs to me that, um ... engineers and hydrologists about
40 years ago approved the location of Hancher Auditorium, and now we're
spending $300 million to rebuild Hancher Auditorium. Engineers and
hydrologists approved the construction of Idyllwild Condominiums, again,
substantially damaged despite the best projections, the best work of the experts.
So when you do get down to that point in the agenda where you talk about
studies, keep in mind that there is a great gap between making projections and
what in fact the river does, because rivers don't read. You know, they're not
going to read the study that's going to be done. The river's going to go where the
river wants to go; and the levee, one may well not work, two may cause more
damage someplace else that is far greater than anything that you try to save.
Those are my concerns. Thank you for your attention to this.
Hayek: Thank you, Greg.
Sueppel: I'm Bud Sueppel, 30 Norwood Circle, and uh, I want to thank ya for giving me a
little time here. The first thing that I'm here for, I'm sure you know, is a I6 -foot
tunnel you're going to make in front of my store. Uh, I've never been told it's all
for safety, which I agree. I'm for the project. I want it done, but I don't want a
16 -foot hole dug in front of my store! Now what are they going to do about these
kids that come from school, decide they want to walk in the tunnel? The
sidewalk's going to be up in the air! Now those kids to this day don't follow the
sidewalk. What are you going to do about the kids that go down in the tunnel?
That's never been answered. And the other thing is when is the final decision
made on this? Do you have any ideas? Up for studies, right. Is there going to be
later on, in January? February? I see where it wasn't going to start until next
year, cause this has a very good point, because if it's going to be done after
January, we do have election and there's two or three of you guys aren't going to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 6
be around here, by your own wishes, but this would be very important for me to
know when the three readings are going to be on this. Do you have any idea?
Hayek: Mr. Sueppel, last night we discussed this at length, and the first decision point
comes after the first of the year, in connection with the budget cycle, and then we
have another decision point later on in the spring timeframe.
Sueppel: (mumbled)
Hayek: Yeah, I mean, that's... that's when we decide (both talking)
Sueppel: So it will be after the elections in November.
Hayek: That is correct.
Sueppel: Okay. I thank you, and I want to thank you all for listening, but I'm very
concerned. I've been in business 40 years around here. They've already took one
business away from me. Now here goes another small business! And I don't see
any of the large business being condemned to build around. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you, sir. Would anyone else like to address the Council on items not on
tonight's agenda? Okay. We will proceed with Item 5.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 7
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
d) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF STONE BRIDGE ESTATES PART TEN, IOWA CITY,
IOWA. (SUB 11-00007)
Mims: Move the resolution.
Dickens: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Dickens. Discussion?
Davidson: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and Members of the City Council. I'm Jeff Davidson,
the Planning Director for the City. Uh ... item d under Planning and Zoning items,
as the Mayor's indicated, is the preliminary plat for Stone Bridge Estates, Part
Ten. This is a 27 -lot subdivision located there, and to orient you, the arrow is
pointing right along Scott Boulevard. This subdivision would be accessed by an
extension of Huntington Drive, which you see here, uh, the newly reconstructed
Lower West Branch Road is a the top of the picture. Uh, you can see here in
areas labeled OPD -H5. This is where Parts Six through Nine of Stone Bridge
Estates are located, and then here is Part Ten, which is under consideration, uh,
this evening. Here you see an aerial photograph. You can see some grading
that's going on in the part, uh, six through nine area. Existing portions, uh, of the
subdivision, uh, and then here is Huntington Drive, which will be extended into
the Part Ten area right here, and you can see there is a small area here which will
remain in Johnson County for the ... for the time being. It is in the City's growth
area, and uh, that's maybe just one more thing to note here on this diagram is this
is the City's growth area boundary, which is basically intended to be, uh, through
2020 or 2025 the, uh, future corporate limits of Iowa City, and you can see we're
just about, uh, butting up to the edge of that. Uh, just a couple things about the
subdivision, uh, for your information. I mean, you may recall during the zoning
of this property, in here you see the actual plat, uh, we had a couple of things, uh,
important things that were part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement that was
worked out with the developer. Uh, Taft Avenue is obviously on our radar as a
future, uh, arterial street. It will enhance the access to our, uh, industrial park that
we're in the process of developing in, uh, southeast Iowa City, but certainly
beyond that just be a ... an arterial street for general circulation of traffic in the
community. Uh, don't want anyone to think that it would be exclusively a truck
route in that respect. Uh, accordingly, the developer will grant us free of charge
the easements we need to purchase, uh, or excuse me, to construct that street. The
developer shall contribute 12.5% of the cost of upgrading that street when that
occurs, and that's according to the formula that we typically use for the
construction of arterial streets. Um ... the lots that ... you will note the lots are
deeper along Taft Avenue than ... than on the other side of the street. Uh, this is to
allow a buffer to be planted, uh, initially the developer will pay a fee for that
buffer. We don't want to construct the buffer and then have it, uh, destroyed
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 8
during the reconstruction of Taft Avenue, so we'll just collect a fee for the buffer
and then actually install it when Taft Avenue is, uh, is reconstructed. Um... in
terms of the Comprehensive Plan, it does call for this area to be single- family, uh,
residential, which, uh, this is in accordance with. Uh, we feel like it is a good
transition, uh, between the single - family areas that will be built adjacent to it, and
the multi - family area, which you see here, uh, in the lower par ... portion of the
picture. Uh, in terms of environmentally sensitive features, we do have the creek
corridor along here. Uh, you can see that there's an outlot right here with a trail
in it, along the creek. Uh, this will be an open -to- the - public trail maintained by
the homeowner's association. When we get up to the bridge here where Thames
Drive will cross the creek, you'll then cross over and then the trail will continue
on this side in outlot b of, uh, an earlier subdivision. There is a small stream
corridor buffer outlot b right here, uh, which is being dedicated as part of this
subdivision. In terms of access, street design, Thames Drive will connect Taft
Avenue. Um, and the way this is set up right now is that we hope to be able to
make this connection between Thames Drive and the existing, uh, rural cross
section of, uh, Taft Avenue right now. Uh, we're making sure that we have it set
up for a good connection when Taft Avenue's reconstructed. We'll do everything
we can to make this connection prior to Taft being reconstructed. Uh, there is, I
guess, a slim possibility that we wouldn't be able to make that connection, but
we'll do everything we can to make that connection right now. It'll certainly be
part of a permanent configuration. Uh, there's an area here that was actually part
of the preliminary plat of Part Seven of Stone Bridge Estates. The developer has
asked that because basically this connection isn't needed for the stuff over here.
It's needed for ... to connect this side of the subdivision to the ... to the rest of the
subdivision. It's being added in terms of, uh, it's being added to Part Ten and will
be constructed along with the streets, uh, in Part Ten. Uh, I think that is ... oh, in
terms of neighborhood parkland. Uh, we're going to collect a fee for this one.
There will be a park ... a park somewhere and ... John, is it roughly in this area
(mumbled) uh, it's actually where the stone bridge is, uh, an old railroad right -of-
way that has a stone bridge, hence the name of the subdivision. Uh, that will be
the park, and the parkland piece that will be dedicated is part of Part Ten, here,
can be used for enhancements to that park, and we think that's the best strategy,
uh, as does Parks and Recreation department. Uh, storm water management will
be handled at the, uh, Scott, uh, Park detention area. Uh, in the staff report you
received, there was some question about the sanitary sewer easement. That's all
been worked out. Um ... there is a water main extension fee that the developer
will be required to, uh ... pay and then ... the ... I believe it's right ... on lots 6 and 7
is where the mailbox clusters will be. Uh, the deficiencies and discrepancies have
been taken care of, and so staff recommends approval. Are there any questions?
Bailey: I have a question about this Thames connection to Taft. Can you show on the
aerial about where it would be?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City city Uouncii
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 9
Davidson: Um ... let's see ... it would be roughly ... in there. Does that look about right, John?
Right about in there (unable to hear John Yapp in audience). Maybe more like
right there.
Bailey: I mean, I think we've done a good job of buffering and preparing people who
lives in this area that there will be a lot of truck traffic on Taft and ... and your
point is well taken that it won't only be a truck route, but ... I guess the more curb
cuts the more access that we have to Taft the greater we set up expectation that
there will be signalization, and then it will reduce the utility of a truck route
when ... that's a primary consideration of Taft, in my perspective. So, and I saw
some discussion about this in the Planning and Zoning and I was just
wondering ... why.
Davidson: Well, in terms of that, you know that's always a concern with arterial streets. The
more stuff there is adjacent to it, the harder it is to maintain the arterial flow of
traffic along, and we've seen that with First Avenue, Scott Boulevard, and
eventually we will, uh, here with Taft Avenue. In terms of signalized
intersections, and you're absolutely right, the large trucks don't like having to
slow down and stop for those. Uh, we would anticipate likely if there was to be a
traffic signal, it would occur at another arterial street intersection, such as here,
such as up at Rochester. We wouldn't anticipate under any circumstance that a
local street intersection (mumbled)
Bailey: Of course, but we wouldn't anticipate that, but citizens as they get accustomed
and frustrated at us, the truck traffic, and the limited access, I mean, I can see, you
know, when this is developed coming back to Council expecting that, and so, um,
is that absolutely necessary for the traffic circulation within the subdivision?
Davidson: It was a determination, working with the developer, uh, and ... and then taking it to
the Planning and Zoning Commission that that was an appropriate connection.
You know, it's a bit of a judgment call, uh, for all of us in terms of how much
access an arterial street like that has. The more ... and basically it's a ... it's a ... a
matter of how convenient you make it for, you know, because that curb cut is
there, people in Part Ten will be able to circulate directly to the arterial, not go
back through the other parts of Stone Bridge Estates to get to either Lower West
Branch Road or Court Street. So it's a matter of ... but Regenia's absolutely right.
That does reduce some of the arterial street capacity of Taft Avenue having that
access point there. So it is a bit of a judgment call. The judgment that you ... that
has been made that you see before you is that one more curb cut will enhance the
neighborhood, while not detracting that much from the arterial street function.
Bailey: And, do we have a sense of what the speed limit will be along that ... will it be a
35 or a (mumbled)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 10
Davidson: Probably initially 35 and then eventually, as there's more and more traffic, more
and more neighborhoods in the area, it may be reduced to 25, such as you see on
First Avenue.
Bailey: Thank you.
Davidson: You're welcome.
Dickens: The circle at the north end of the property...
Davidson: Oh, thanks for bringing that up, Terry. Sorry, I (both talking)
Dickens: ... other property gets bought, it (both talking)
Davidson: I forgot to mention that, yeah! There's... there's of course the property up here
that is remaining in Johnson County for now. What we've set up here is a cul -de-
sac so that there's good, you know, nobody has to pull into somebody's driveway
in order to turn around, and the Fire Department has the ability to turn around in
this area, as well as the Public Works' vehicles, but we've allowed the
opportunity for the street to be extended through, and what could happen then is
this cul -de -sac bulb could come out, outlot a could be split into two lots then, uh,
and the street reconstructed basically as a stub here that would be extended into
the adjacent area. Outlot a then would have to be resubdivided by the developer.
Thank you for bringing that up, Terry.
Mims: Yeah, I have the same concerns Regenia does and when we talked ... when we
talked about, you know, Taft ending up being an arterial and a heavy truck street
that, in terms of the number of curb cuts, and the expectation that people start
having once that curb cut is there. I guess, that was part of my question, you
know, that Terry brought up too with that cul -de -sac, is there ... is there a
reasonable possibility as we go along that this street, uh ... which is the one that
runs north -south here in the subdivision?
Davidson: Huntington.
Mims: Huntington. That that could ultimately... go all the way to, uh, Lower West
Branch Road and (both talking)
Davidson: Yes, that's ... we're allowing for that to occur.
Mims: And then even close that curb cut? I mean, I'm ... I'm just really concerned like
Regenia is that we're ... I want to see the development. I like the layout and
everything, but I'm just really concerned ... I don't even like to hear the thought
that ... that Taft might go down to 25- miles -an -hour. If we're talking about that as
an arterial for a lot of truck traffic, they need to keep moving there, and I ... I really
want to be cautious on how many curb cuts we get and the expectations that are
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 11
set up that people ... like, oh, the trucks are here, they're going too fast, I mean,
that's ... we've got to look at our businesses and ... and their needs for
transportation and uh...
Wilburn: I can appreciate what both of you have said, but I don't know that we
can ... there's going to be some level of expectation if development goes in there
anyway, because already here, well, I don't know why the city doesn't connect
this up so that we can get through to ... Taft.
Mims: Right, but I think ... I think if you see an arterial that truly has a minimal number
of curb cuts and they're all signalized, and done so that your traffic, particularly
your truck traffic, but anybody who's on that road can really move through very
efficiently, then I think that really adjusts the expectations of other people, if
that's the way it's done from the beginning.
Wilburn: I think my only point is ... people are still going to ... I want my access ... well, we
just had that conversation, uh, related to cut - through traffic over on the north, you
know, people have that expectation, what's going to be the easiest for me. I'm
just ... all I'm saying is, you're not going to ... there's going to be some level of
expectation about ... about both access and, um, the concerns that you all have
raised (several talking).
Mims: Yeah, and my concern is ... is we get more developments along Taft, and
somebody says well, you let so -and -so have a curb cut, why can't I have a curb
cut in my development, that we just ... then we start down a path of too many, too
close together, and end up kind of defeating that whole goal we have of
minimizing the number of curb cuts and really making that a really good arterial
street for that east side truck traffic.
Bailey: I mean, we've done a great job of learning from Scott Boulevard with this buffer.
I mean, I think ... I think that's a really ... a ... a good lesson that we've learned
and ... and now we have it. Isn't there another lesson to be learned about
maintaining the traffic and limiting curb cuts?
Davidson: Yeah, and obviously we would not recommend this to you if we did not feel it
was a good access plan. To use the example of Scott Boulevard, I think that's a
street that makes a ... you know, does a good job of fulfilling the neighborhood
access and the arterial street, uh, function. Uh, First Avenue does a poor job.
Way too many accesses of individual residences, intersecting streets, uh, you
know, what we've tried to do is reach that balance. I think Scott Boulevard does
it pretty well. That's my opinion. Uh, and I think Taft Avenue will do it, uh, well
as, uh, as well with this ... with this proposed plan. But certainly, if ... if this was to
be voted down and go back for replatting, to take that street out, uh, that would
further enhance the arterial street traffic on Taft Avenue, but provide poorer
access by the neighborhood to the ... to the arterial street.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 12
Champion: Actually Scott Boulevard has quite a few...
Wright: Yes it does!
Champion: ... curb cuts, and I don't see (several talking) problem.
Davidson: Well, there's no individual lot access, Connie. That's the big change compared to
like First Avenue (both talking) but there are minimal, but ... but certainly some
intersecting streets when you think about that.
Hayek: Do we get pressure to signalize those, uh, neighborhood, uh...
Davidson: Not the neighborhood intersecting streets. Not... no. (several talking)
Wright: I haven't heard ... I know some people who live off those on Scott and I never
heard anybody complain about their (mumbled)
Dickens: I used to live over in that area and never had a problem getting on, in any
direction.
Bailey: Well, I've had a lot of complaints about noise and truck traffic, and that's why
I'm really happy with this buffer. Along here, um ... I don't know.
Moreland: I'd just like to say something. I'm John Moreland, the developer, and uh, when
we platted Stone Bridge Five through Nine, several years ago, um, dealing with
Bob Miklo over months and months and months, they demanded an access onto
Taft. So we designed the whole area based on that access onto Taft. So, it wasn't
like we came up with it and we pushed it to the staff. They recommended that,
highly recommended that, and you don't go against something that's highly
recommended. And, uh, so ... that's how this all got designed that way.
Bailey: Well, and ... and Jeff made the point, it...it does reduce cut - throughs to the
neighborhood so it is the balancing act, the ... part of the problem is we don't have
the whole picture of Taft. I mean ... where will the next curb cut be and ... and, I
mean, you probably do. The...
Davidson: Well, everything ... I mean, there ... there will not likely be, uh, any access ... this
isn't platted yet (mumbled, speaking away from mic). Right, so, but ... but
chances are this close to the corner here, there wouldn't be any access. Obviously
there's one access point here that ... that might provide access to this area. So you
basically got an arterial street here, an access point there... there... you know, I
mean, we ... we feel like it's reasonable access control for an arterial street that is
also a city street.
Wright: We're not ... we're not building a highway along there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 13
Davidson: That's correct, Mike!
Wright: Doesn't have to be (both talking)
Davidson: Quite frankly, we're ... we're probably not wanting a street that has a 45- mile -an-
hour speed limit on it, because that's too ... that's too fast for the adjacent
neighborhoods.
Hayek: If we were to go that route we shouldn't be zoning this residential.
Bailey: Right.
Wright: Exactly!
Hayek: Okay.
Davidson: Any further questions for me?
Hayek: Any questions for Jeff or for Mr. Moreland? Further discussion?
Mims: I'll support it. I just ... you know, to the rest of Council and to staff, I just hope we
are incredibly cautious going forward about curb cuts on Taft.
Bailey: Well, I know it's been discussed. I saw (both talking) Planning and Zoning
meeting. I know staff is aware of it, um ... you know. I'm not a transportation
planner. So, I'll support it, but I ... the cautionary tale is, what we've learned from
Scott, what we know of citizen expectations and to the degree we can control
those, and what our intent is, um, for this area, which is supporting a fair amount
of truck traffic, while being a city street. So ... I'll support it but, um ... with that
(mumbled)
Wright: I'm going to support it too. And I think part of this comes into being just a
balance.
Bailey: Yeah!
Wright: It's ... it's not a limited access highway. It is still a city street. Um, we have one
cut in that stretch; I'm guessing as development goes forward we may have a very
similar one on the other side. Who knows?
Hayek: Can I ask Mr. Moreland one ... one question? Uh ... irrespective of what, uh, your
strong encouragement was on earlier developments or on this development, as the
person developing this, do you think having this cut is advantageous and ... and
prudent and a good idea?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 14
Moreland: Not necessarily. I mean, I think for flow it's probably good so the cars don't go
back all the way through the neighborhood. So, I don't think it's going to effect it
one way or the other. As far as sales go I don't think.
Hayek: Yeah, but ... is it a good ... just in the long run (both talking)
Moreland: Well I think it's good because the city really wanted it. (laughter)
Hayek: But I'm asking you, as the ... as somebody who understands markets and what
sells and what...
Moreland: Well, I mean, quite frankly, I really didn't want it because that cul ... culvert there
is about $300,000. (several talking) So I ... so I...I didn't want to do it,
but... sometimes there's a way of bending. They ... they determine for traffic flow,
they really thought they needed it, so ... we just, you know, planned accordingly.
Bailey: Which is a balancing act (mumbled)
Mims: Can I ask you another question, Mr. Moreland?
Moreland: Yes.
Mims: If ... if we turn this down and said we don't want that curb cut, what would that do
to you time -wise in terms of...replatting it without that.
Moreland: Well, I don't know. I mean, I've spent a year with Bob, just getting this far along,
and ... and the owners on the north side, I've spent some time with them, talking to
them, and they're very happy about single - family. Started out trying to keep
multi- family on that street, and the neighbors and other people weren't happy
about that, so we switched over to single - family. So in this 12 -month process,
we've got all the neighbors happy, including the people in the north, and I really
don't want to go back through that again, and urn ... you know, the other thing
about this is, these are smaller lots. I mean, we're hoping to build some, you
know, a little bit cheaper homes ... in that area. So, I mean, I think it's a good
development and it's going to be good.
Mims: Thank you.
Hayek: Okay. Further discussion? Roll call, please. Item passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 15
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
e) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF ROCHESTER RIDGE, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB11-
00001)
Davidson: Uh, you have two items, uh, preliminary and final plat. If you don't mind we'll
just do them at the same time.
Hayek: Sure.
Davidson: You can consider them separately, of course. Uh, the preliminary plat, and you
may be wondering where the staff report was for this. It's in your May, let's
see... May... 17, uh, agenda cause we had anticipated this being taken up right
after the final reading of the zoning. It ended up there were some procedural
things that were not, uh, in place, and so it was not taken up at that time, but that's
why there's ... you may recall from the zoning, uh, this is the location here, again
to orient you. Rochester Avenue, uh, up at the top here, uh, existing, uh, Amherst
Street along here. Uh, This is a nice infill project, which we always encourage in
the city, of course. Utility infrastructure costs are considerably less when we're
dealing with an infill parcel. Uh, we had a number of environmental issues to
work through with this, uh, relating to steep slopes and, um, a ... trees that were
being, um, taken out by the project, and there's a lot of replacement trees. About
a 147 replacement trees. Uh, the subdivider's agreement will tie up the
stipulations of protection of some existing trees, in particular along, uh, this area
of Rochester Avenue, and then the plan for planting the new trees. There were
also some substantial wetland issues you'll, uh, recall, related to, uh, outlot a
down here. Uh, those were resolved, although we are still waiting for the Corps
permit, uh, which will enable the subdivider to go ahead and begin the grading for
this project. Uh, we are waiting for that. We are recommending approval subject
to that, because of your meeting schedule in August, being meetings so far apart.
We feel that's consistent with what, uh, the Planning and Zoning Commission
was looking for. Uh, we have just a couple other things. A long block here, so
we have a pedestrian access, uh, in the middle of that long block. Uh, we're
connecting to some existing, uh, streets here. Lower West Branch Road, um...
Westminster here, uh ... and ... uh, this'll be a new street then, of course, and we've
stubbed a street here, uh, there is a parcel that remains undeveloped here, but
eventually these two streets could connect and we've allowed for that to occur.
Um, so that's the, uh, that's the preliminary plat of the whole area, and then the
final plat, uh, this'll be ... the developer's indicated this will be platted in four
phases, and what you see here in the cross -hatch area is phase one. It includes
both the developable lots in this area, and then the storm water area down in this
area, uh, which will all be done as part of phase one. Uh, you see the 18 lots then
that are part of, uh, part one. Um ... and I think we've addressed everything. As...
as I mentioned, we're recommending approval subject to the Corps permit. And
if you have any questions about the wetlands, you'll... you'll recall that what was
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 16
worked out between the developer and the Corps of Engineers was off -site, uh,
mitigation in... in both the location across the street here and then actually a
separate location that's actually out of the county, uh, in the Iowa River
watershed. So, uh, anyway, this is the first 18 lots, first of four, uh, parts of this
subdivision. Uh, any questions?
Hayek: Questions for Jeff?
Davidson: Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you. Discussion?
Mims: Move approval of the resolution.
Dickens: Second.
Hayek: Uh, yeah, I guess we hadn't, uh ... we hadn't done it! (laughter and several
talking) Moved by Mims, seconded by, uh, Dickens. Discussion, which we've
already had! Any additional? Roll call, please. Item passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Uouncii
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 17
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
f. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF
ROCHESTER RIDGE PART ONE, IOWA CITY, IOWA. &SUB11-
00008)
Bailey: Move adoption.
Champion: Move the resolution.
Hayek: Uh, moved by Bailey, seconded by...
Champion: Champion.
Hayek: Champion. Discussion? Roll call, please. Item passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 18
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
h) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING
APPROXIMATELY .69 -ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1014,1016 AND 1022 HUDSON AVENUE FROM MEDIUM
DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -8) TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC -2). (REZ11- 00008) (PASS AND
ADOPT)
Bailey: Move adoption.
Mims: Second.
Dickens: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Mims. Uh, any ex parte? (several responding)
Discussion? Roll call, please. Item passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 19
ITEM 6. CONVEYANCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 519
NORTH JOHNSON STREET.
a. PUBLIC HEARING
Hayek: This is in connection with the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership program.
This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open. Public hearing is
closed. (bangs gavel)
b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
Wilburn: Move adoption.
Bailey: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Bailey: This is a really ... I had the opportunity to tour this one, and it's a really lovely
home, um, on the north side, so ... an exciting project and the developers did a
great job.
Wright: We say this every time, but this really turned out to be a terrific program.
Champion: We all love it!
Hayek: Roll call, please. Item passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 20
ITEM 8. DETERMINING AN AREA OF THE CITY TO BE AN ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND THAT THE REHABILITATION,
CONSERVATION, REDEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT, OR A
COMBINATION THEREOF, OF SUCH AREA IS NECESSARY IN THE
INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF
THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY; DESIGNATING SUCH AREA AS
APPROPRIATE FOR AN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT; AND
ADOPTING THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE SCOTT SIX
URBAN RENEWAL AREA, AMENDMENT NO. 1.
a) PUBLIC HEARING
Hayek: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open. Public hearing is
closed. (bangs gavel)
b) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
Mims: Move the resolution.
Bailey: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Wright: (mumbled) point out that this is ... basically just adding land for our industrial park
zone ... which is pretty close (mumbled)
Hayek: Yep! Roll call, please. Item passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 21
ITEM 9. IOWA CITY'S FY11 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT # 4,
WHICH IS A SUB -PART OF IOWA CITY'S 2011 -2015 CONSOLIDATED
PLAN (CITY STEPS), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
SUBMIT SAID PLAN AND ALL NECESSARY CERTIFICATIONS TO
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
a) PUBLIC HEARING
Hayek: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open.
Davidson: Mr. Mayor, Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning. At last night's work session
there was a question raised by Councilor Bailey. I was able to get an answer to
that question. The question was: is the 5 -year compliance period that is being,
uh, recommended to you, uh, standard. There is no required compliance period
for the CDBG program. There is for the Home program, and it is 5 years, so staff
is recommending the use of the same compliance period. It's basically to
maintain the affordability, which is 51% of the units reserved for low- to mod -
income households for a 5 -year period.
Bailey: Thank you.
Davidson: Thank you.
Hayek: Jeff. Any other comments, uh, during the public hearing? Okay. I will close it at
this time. (bangs gavel)
b) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
Mims: (both talking)
Bailey: (both talking)
Hayek: Moved by Mims, uh, seconded by Bailey. Discussion? Roll call, please. Item
passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 22
ITEM 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO ACCEPT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT FOR A STUDY TO IDENTIFY IMPACTS OF AND REVIEW
ALTERNATIVES FOR FLOOD PROTECTION ALONG TAFT
SPEEDWAY AND TO EXECUTE THE GRANT AGREEMENT.
Bailey: Move adoption.
Mims: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Mims. Uh, discussion? Now, um, I know there
are people here to speak on ... on these issues. Um ... why don't we, uh, item 12
has to do with accepting the funding that funds the study. Item 13 has to do with
entering a contract for the study. Why don't we go ahead and have the discussion
under this item, with the understanding that we'll just go to item 13 and ... and go
through that after we completed this discussion. So, if you're here to speak on...
on the ... on the levee, on the ... on the funding, or on the, uh, actual contract, now's
the time, uh, to address Council, and I think ... looks like there are a number of
people here. If you'd like to speak, um, just get in line or ... or wait your turn
and ... and uh, we'll follow the same rule we do with everything, which is if you
please sign in, give us your name, and then limit your ... limit your comments to
five minutes. Is there anyone who would like to address the, uh, address the
Council?
Wilcox: My name is Joel Wilcox, and I live at 119 Taft Speedway Street. Uh, you're
voting on this levee study tonight because of our letters, emails, and phone calls,
uh ... we called attention to the fact that the Taft Speedway neighborhood was not
mentioned in the proposal that was awarded funding, even when there was a
question specifically asking who might be negatively affected if the project were
funded. Nor were minority persons who might be negatively affected mentioned
in response to a similar question over easements that would be required mention.
I have no idea what the intent was in not mentioning our neighborhood. The only
response we have heard from City staff and the newspapers is that since a
negative, uh... since a negative petition was included as part of the public
comment at the proposal, the neighborhood was not actually being hidden from
HUD or IDED. One has to wonder at the ... huxtpa of this argument since it takes
a fact that proves our neighborhood was not mentioned to try to suggest that it
was. A number of you on the Council indicated that you would vote to accept
funding for the levee because it represented greater good for the greater number.
This begs the question of what the good is, and whether causing a smaller group
to suffer inconvenience and risk to improve the standing and value of a larger
group can be called good when it is simply, to a guy like me, simply unjust or
unfair. But this study acknowledges, uh, that the claims are far more balanced
than simply nine homeowners against 92. Uh, nearly half the units in Idyllwild
are rented right now, I believe. Uh, common sense tells you those owners have
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 23
other resources and are never coming back to live. Homeowners of both sides of
the river who have accepted the risks of living on the flood plain and rejected the
buy -out mentality number nearly 80 strong right now. We pay taxes and we don't
want our tax money spent solely to improve the market value of Idyllwild units, to
the detriment of our own homes. I believe it's in the best interest of all taxpayers
in Iowa City to shut down efforts to build the levee under Taft Speedway. This
study simply throws good money after bad. But if it takes such a study to show
this to be true, so be it. Do it. This is not simply a flood plain issue. All citizens
of Iowa City will bear the burden of building this levee. Email sent to you by
Mary Murphy is excellent, and I agree with it entirely and I hope you've read it
with care. I will mention two ... just two additional concerns. One, the prospect of
legal problems where a municipality's interfered with the natural flow of water on
a flood plain to favor one group of residents at the expense of others. And two,
the cost of the levee itself and how it will be funded. On a prospect of legal
problems that may ensue, simply Google the phrase "no adverse impact" and one
can read ample cautionary tales about causing disadvantage to one group of
residents on a flood plain to benefit a favored group. Secondly, the citizens of
Iowa City should ask this question: How can we afford this project? The Taft
Speedway Road levee is estimated to cost about $12 million, yet only $8 million
has been awarded. Three million will be reallocated from the project to raise
Foster Road, about $3 million. But it costs ... if it costs $3 million to raise an 1 /8tn
of a mile of Foster Road, how can a half mile of Taft Speedway and No Name
Road be funded for $12 million when the Taft Speedway levee would require an
impermeable barrier down 15 feet below the surface, with a 10 -foot high levee on
top, modern road and bike path. The purchase of easements and redundant
facilities on both sides of the levee to provide services, not to mention pumping
stations and maintenance. The Taft Speedway levee plan starts off with ... with, at
the minimum a $1 million shortfall that taxpayers of Iowa City must make up.
And the prospect that the short ... that the shortfall is actually going to be much
higher than that is pretty strong. If you approve this study, it must give some
clarity to the real financial burden of this project, not just to my neighborhood, but
to the whole community. As it is right now, we on the flood plain have all chosen
to live here. We all share the equality of risk and now we all have flood
insurance. There are so many mistakes of judgment that have been made in the
history of Idyllwild and people have suffered for them. But they are not the only
residents who suffered in the flood. As my mother lives in Idyllwild, and I live on
Taft Speedway, my family and I have to an extent suffered doubly. That's life!
That's the consequence of one's decisions. Why should the citizens of Iowa City
be taxed to improve the property value for Idyllwild and create a legacy of
inequality and inequity forever. Thank you very much.
Hayek: Thank you, Mr. Wilcox.
Cline: Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is Sally Cline. I live at 33 Trevose Place in
Iowa City, which is in Idyllwild. Um, I'm representing 92, and perhaps without
Joel's mom, it's maybe only 91 owners in ... in Idyllwild, and we really are
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 24
encouraging the Council to take the CDBG money and do the study, and expand
the study for the betterment of all that are involved. Everyone in Idyllwild was
affected by the flood. There was not one ... one unit that was not. Um, we ... we
are strongly, um ... rentals right now, and that was only allowed because we had so
many people that needed to ... they felt they could not rebuild. A lot of our owners
down in Idyllwild at the time of the flood were well into their 80s, and just simply
didn't have the energy or... simply didn't have the energy to rebuild. So we did
allow, um ... contractors to come in and buy, and they were ... they're able to rent
in Idyllwild until the year 2016, and as each property changes in Idyllwild,
changes ownership, that ownership, um, it has to be a single- family ownership,
has to be owner- occupied. So, we're ... we're back and we're good and we love
living there! But we also live under the fear of a flood ... again, and ... and we
really encourage you to ... to take the grant money and to do the study for the
betterment of all those in, um, Mosquito Flats, um, down on Park Road, as well as
in Idyllwild, and ... and Taft Speedway. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you, Miss Cline.
Novak: Good evening, I'm Tom Novak. I live in Parkview Terrace, and I think the ... the
study is worth doing. I guess my ... my concern is, as we've seen over the last
several years and certainly this year, um, levees fail. I think we're ... we're
looking at a white elephant. I ... the ... the climate is changing. Dubuque got 14
inches of rain. That would back up behind the levee. I don't know how you
pump water out that fast. Urn ... we ... we rebuilt because we weren't aware that
there was going to be a buy -out option for people that were above the 100 -year
flood plain. We're now in debt, at a point where a buy -out for us doesn't make
economic sense. I would rather not live in a flood plain, but when we bought 20
years ago that didn't seem to be a concern to anybody. Um, I think looking at
where Iowa City is going to be 20, 30, 40 years from now, we don't see homes
remaining in Parkview Terrace. I think the next flood will get rid of more people
and the flood after that will eliminate whoever else is there. And I think ... I think
there's a false sense of security with a levee, just as there was when they built the
Coralville Dam. They told us it would never flood. You know, they hadn't had a
flood since they built the dam, so we bought it believing that. Um, I think that the
amount of resources that go into building a levee that will at some point fail are...
are really resources that then are wasted for the community. Um, I think flood
insurance certainly is mandatory for all of us who live there now, even thought it
was not mandatory previously. I think the Idyllwild people should all have flood
insurance, if they don't. And ... and again, I think they're fooling themselves if
they think a levee is going to provide them adequate protection, uh, against future
flooding. There will be a flood worse than this one. There will be heavy rains
worse than this one. Um, and I ... I ... I'm not opposed to the study, but I think we
have to think very long and hard about what we accomplish by building a levee.
Hayek: Thank you, sir.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 25
McKusick: I'm Joye McKusick. I live at 805 Normandy Drive. I've lived in Iowa City since
1943. My family built a home off of Park Road, uh, in 1947. I have a picture in
my folder that I'd be happy to share with anyone, who can show you how a flood
of 47 went through the house under construction at that time, and on through
Mosquito Flats as we knew it then, uh, across the corn field and out through City
Park. It actually went through a different corner of City Park then since the
development has gone in. The water is now permitted to flow. There's been
some construction go on at the end of Normandy Drive that in the process of
permitting it the City also permitted the raising of the ... the table, the ... the ground
level, and so at any rate, it now catches water down at that end as if it were a big
bowl. And it not only that, but it can come in to our area between 601 and 701
Normandy Drive. There is a storm water drain that does not have anything built
into it to keep the water from not coming back into the drive. So it...it really
is ... it causes some early flooding, especially after we put the different elevations
down at the far end of Normandy Drive. But at any rate, um, there was a
wonderful article on the front page of the New York Times this past Sunday, and
it had to do with flooding along the Missouri right now, and the wonderful way
that the Corps of Engineers is so very dependable for what we were all counting
on them to do for us, and the reminder at the end of that article is: in Iowa and in
the Midwest we have floods. We also can have tornados. In Florida they have
the hurricanes. In the southwest they have their fires. So wherever we live we do
have, and wherever we individually chose to live, we have some sort of hazards
that we ... are out choice. And that includes whether we're going to be indepen-
dent, responsible for our own properties or whether we're going to chose to live in
a condominium situation. So I would hope that we would not waste taxpayer's
dollar, and accept the fact that maybe 20 years down the way or so, or even
sooner, there could be another flood and those of us who live in that area should
know that that's a possibility. And certainly have our insurance and take care of
ourselves. Thank you very much.
Hayek: Thank you, ma'am.
Kaldahl: Uh, Bradley Kaldahl, 701 Normandy Drive. Um ... you know the one ... the one
thing that I'm concerned about when I look at this is the fact that we're going to
be charging additional costs, um, from City funds to do a study when in fact
shortly after the flood we actually had flood mitigation experts come in and talk
about, um, the advantages, and also the disadvantages, of putting in something
like a levee, and one of their comments was was that not only is the levee itself an
expense, but there's all the maintenance required. You get animals that burrow
into it. Uh, I think several people have mentioned we've seen this year that levees
fail, and that was the experts that we as taxpayers paid to come in to educate us
about. Um, but in addition, I think a very good point was made about, um, the
fairness, um, the idea that one community or one part of the community would be
"attempted to protect" at the risk of creating more of a flood hazard for those and
others. Um, I live down in the, uh, Parkview Terrace area and um, I believe that,
uh, I think we're looking at the bridge, which is further down from us, and saying
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 26
that should be raised as a way to help mitigate the floods, so I can't imagine how
common sense would dictate that if we take and narrow the river closer to us in
Parkview Terrace that it's not going to increase damages to those of us in this
particular area. And I know there has been money spent to attempt to mitigate the
Parkview Terrace area, but the reality is is that's never going to happen. Um,
there's ... the amount of expense is just too enormous. On the other hand, I would
encourage... if, um, the City does have funds and money to spend or access to
CDBG money, to consider offering assistance to those that are in the area to raise
their home out of the flood plain. It reduces flood insurance. It is something that
is approved by FEMA. It's something that we've done with our home and we feel
much safer knowing that our home is actually been moved up, and the expense for
raising a home is dramatically less than the cost of, for example, buying a home
and tearing it down. Um ... this would not only provide, um, safety to the
residents, but again, at much less expense. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you, sir.
Geerdes: I'm, uh, still Greg Geerdes, and I still live at 890 Park Place in Iowa City.
Hayek: You know, Greg, why don't we wait and see if there's anyone else, because really
your comments earlier were more or less on this topic, and I just want to give
everybody an opportunity to speak, and ... and you can come up a second time. I
don't have a problem with that. Thank you.
Wilcox: Good evening, I'm Cathy Wilcox, and I've lived at 119 Taft Speedway Street
since 1992. The Taft Speedway levee with the road on top will have a negative
impact to my home, other homes on Taft Speedway, and in the Parkview Terrace
neighborhood. You have heard from others speak about this. In addition, it will
be extremely costly to all Iowa City residents, and it should not be built. City
staff says it is to protect Idyllwild. But I believe there is another reason for
wanting this levee with a road on top of it. I know that you were not on the City
Council when the decision was made to develop the Peninsula. However, some
current City staff were involved. I attended the first meeting at Parkview Church
that the City staff had with the neighbors in the area to talk about the Peninsula
development. City staff even had a representative from the first developer in
attendance to share the plan, show the grand scope of the development, and
answer questions. Those in attendance were all concerned that when the high -
density development was completed, that there would be only one access out of
the Peninsula onto Foster Road. At the time, City staff indicated that this was
indeed a concern, a very valid one, and they would seek a secondary access. I
attended other meetings that the City had regarding the Peninsula development,
and each time the secondary road access was brought up. City staff at one of the
meetings said that they had a plan to purchase property near (can't hear) trailer
court, build a road on that north side that would come in through Laura Drive.
Years passed, the Peninsula development changed hands, the link continued, and
here we are today without the secondary road access. Through all these years,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 27
residents were never updated about the status of the secondary road access.
However, a few years ago my neighbor obtained a plan that City staff had that
showed an extension of Taft Speedway further towards the west, around the Elks
golf course, and this would be the secondary access to the Peninsula. However,
property had to be purchased, not the homeowners, the vacant lots and later on I
found out that the homeowner was unwilling to sell. City staff acknowledged that
they needed a secondary access to the Peninsula. Although the Taft Speedway -
No Name Street levee does not provide the same type of secondary access along
Foster Road, it is still another access if Foster Road should flood. Council
members rely on City staff to provide as much information as possible in order for
you to make important decisions that affect residents and neighborhoods. A
decision was made in the past to develop the Peninsula, but unfortunately not all
pieces were in place and we are now faced with solving a long- standing access
problem. I find it disturbing that City staff would use flood mitigation to solve a
secondary road access problem that many City staff knew existed when they
decided to go ahead with the Peninsula project. It is unfortunate that City staff
completed a grant so hastily (mumbled) and gave Idyllwild residents so much
hope for their protection. It is not right to protect one neighborhood at the
expense of another. The cost is too prohibitive and to use flood protection to
solve a secondary road access problem is not right. The residents of Idyllwild
have taken action to protect themselves by securing ... by securing protection from
future flooding just as Taft Speedway residents have been doing for years, by
purchasing flood insurance. When we signed up with FEMA after we got
flooded, the person there asked me if we had flood insurance and I said yes. And
she said that is the only way that you can protect yourselves against future
flooding. So she encouraged us to all continue to purchase flood insurance and I
hope that that's what all residents who live on the flood plain will do. The Taft
Speedway levee with a road on top should not be built. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you, ma'am. Greg, I think you're up.
Geerdes: Thank you, uh, Mr. Mayor. Just very briefly. The study's not going to study
what may be the most important things. Study is not going to tell you about how
reliable that study can be expected to be. As the other speakers have been
speaking about, you read in the newspapers on a flood -by -flood basis of failed
levees. (mumbled) Hamburg, Iowa and witness that yourself. We don't know
how accurate those predictions are going to be, and if we look back at our city's
history, when we consider the construction of the Coralville Dam, the
construction of Hancher Auditorium, etc., etc., I would suggest that we have a
history of failure in regard to successfully trying to project what the river is going
to do. I remember, um ... by background, we ... we are slightly above the 500 -year
flood plain and didn't flood. I remember talking to some Corps people, literally
hours before the crest of the 08 flood was ultimately reached, and they assured me
that the river was going to rise another 3 feet in the next 24 hours, and that we
were all doomed. Um, of course that projection, thankfully, was wrong and the
crest fell well below what was projected. Study that you're going to commission
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 28
if you decide to do it is also not going to talk to you about aesthetics and I would
encourage you to think about what the Peninsula can be like 50 years from now,
and whether or not your vision of what it can be and should be will be enhanced
by the presence of a monstrous... mound of dirt that separates the north side of the
river from the river. We haven't done a good job in this community, particularly
in the area south of downtown, about integrating the town into the river. I think
what you're going to be doing with a levee is separating even more the
community from the river. And the study's not going to tell you whether that's
good or bad. It's not even going to address that issue. Finally, I'm more
optimistic than some of the people that have come up here. I think we have seen
the flood of our lifetime, and I think that, um, there's no dire reason to think that,
uh, this is going to be a yearly event. I also believe that city, especially City Park,
uh, can be improved as a result of this. I, uh, am very pleased with ... with the
preliminary meetings that we've had with the Parks people, uh, I think the City
has a vision and recognizes that there's an opportunity to improve City Park and
to make it the magnet that it really should be for our community's core. And
again, I don't see a scar in the form of a levee across the river as enhancing that.
Thank you for your attention to this. Think carefully about whether you would
want to go forward with the study. If it's a bad idea, studying a bad idea isn't a
good thing. Thank you.
Hayek: Thanks, Greg. Would anyone else from the audience like to address us on either
item 12 or 13? Okay. Council discussion?
Dickens: If we accept these funds, uh ... what does that tie us to? I guess ... do we have to
continue on the project, or is that just strictly to get more information?
Hayek: (mumbled) get an answer from staff on that.
Davidson: The study, Terry, is a requirement for you to subsequently decide, and that will be
a subsequent decision by the City Council, if you want to, uh, accept the larger
grant, $8 point something million, uh, to construct whatever the study determines
is to be constructed. Right now what's on the table is a levee. The study will
investigate, you know, could end up being a temporary flood wall, you know,
that's put in and out during the flood event, but regardless, the study has to be
completed if you wish to take any type of flood mitigation strategy along Taft
Speedway into consideration using the federal funds that have been offered.
Dickens: Thank you.
Hayek: Further discussion?
Wright: I believe we go ahead with the study. I think it's ... it may well turn up some
options that we haven't considered.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 29
Champion: I'm mixed on it. I think we should do the study. I ... right now I'm not against
this levee. I think the amount of money is exorbitant. I'm not willing to sacrifice
other people for the safety of others, but I think I'm in favor of doing the study
cause maybe it'll bring out the real consequences of this project, and um, I think
the best thing we can do is to build a road to the Peninsula, up the hill or raise
Foster Road to provide that access, but I ... I think I'm willing to do the study, but
I might just say no. (laughter) I might say yes. I haven't decided!
Mims: I'm in favor of doing the study, if for no other reason it keeps the option on the
table of the other federal money. I mean, from what Jeff just said, if we don't do
the study, that other money's gone. Whether ... like he said, whether it was to be
for a temporary wall or for a levee or whatever. So I think it's important that we
take that and do the study, understanding the limitations of it, so that we keep our
options open, and then look at the results of that study, and you know, the input
from the community and the pros and cons, and then have the opportunity to
make a final decision a little further down the road about if we accept the money
and how we use it.
Wilburn: I agree. I think this Council, since the flood event happened, has been trying...
we're always keeping options open (mumbled) the public input into consideration
and I ... I ... I agree with what you just said.
Bailey: I think the study's a prudent step forward, um ... and of course I'm going to be
supportive. I think as we get farther and farther from the 2008 event, um, I think
that we forget that everybody in a community might, urn ... we might think that we
only bear the burden of flood mitigation after the fact, but in 2008 everybody in
the community bore the expense of, um, flood response and flood recovery.
That's what it means to be in community. And so I don't think that we can ignore
that when we do ... when we look at costs, when we look at benefits. So I think
that this will give us the opportunity to do that. It will give us the opportunity to
explore some things that perhaps we haven't considered. I think we all
understand the limitations of any flood mitigation project, and um ... so ... I'm
supportive of taking these funds.
Hayek: This is an important decision for the City. It's a difficult one. Um, and it will
have an impact, uh, and ... and one that can't, uh, be, uh ... entirely, uh, beneficial
to all involved. Um, whatever we do. And, uh, I think we can and should be as
deliberate as possible about this, um, sweep out all the corners, so to speak, and
uh, the ... I think this... this... we have an opportunity to get the funds. We have an
opportunity to conduct the study and ... and get this analysis and then take it from
there. So I'll support this. I think it's ... I think it's what we have to do. Further
discussion? Roll call, please. Item passes 6 -1, Champion in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 30
ITEM 13. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING, AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO
ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY AND HDR INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
SERVICES FOR THE TAFT SPEEDWAY FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY
PROJECT. (deferred from 7/5 meeting)
Bailey: Move adoption.
Mims: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Mims. Discussion? Does anyone have anything
regarding this particular contract? Okay. Any discussion among Council? Roll
call, please. Item passes 6 -1, Champion in the negative.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Wilburn: So moved.
Wright: Second.
Hayek: Motion from Wilburn, seconded by Wright. Discussion? All those in favor say
aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 31
ITEM 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT PROGRAMS IN
THE TOWNCREST URBAN RENEWAL AREA FOR FAhADE
RENOVATION, PREDEVELOPMENT DESIGN ASSISTANCE AND GAP
FINANCING.
Bailey: Move adoption.
Dickens: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Dickens. Discussion?
Champion: I'll be abstaining from this. I have a conflict of interest.
Hayek: Okay. Roll call, please. Item passes 6 -0, Champion abstaining.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 32
ITEM 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO
ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLEGE
GREEN PARK LIGHTING REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
Hayek: Uh, engineer's estimate was $114,000 roughly, uh, one bid was received from
Advanced Electrical Services in Iowa City for a little over $99,000 and Public
Works recommends awarding the contract to Advanced. Uh, this project will be
funded with General Obligation Bond proceeds.
Wright: Move adoption.
Dickens: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Wright, seconded by Dickens. Discussion?
Wright: Glad to see this one finally going through.
Hayek: Roll call, please. Item passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 33
ITEM 20. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES.
Hayek: Uh, I want to announce a corrected, uh, opening, which regards a vacancy on the
Parks and Rec Commission. Uh, there is one position on that. Uh, applications
must be received by 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, September 141H
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 34
ITEM 23. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Hayek: Why don't we start with you, Susan?
Mims: Nothing!
Champion: Nothing!
Wright: Pass!
Wilburn: Just want to thank the police department for the excellent job routing traffic
through town on Ragbrai. Went pretty smooth!
Bailey: And I just want to say how much fun it was to see Ragbrai come through town.
Did you ride through (mumbled) (both talking). It was great! So, uh, commend
Coralville for their bid and it was great to have those bikes (mumbled) (several
talking)
Wilburn: ...cheer me on, but he didn't say anything when I rode by.
Hayek: I saw you and you were about 100 — yards to the (several talking) ... guy was
blaring the radio and I thought there's no way Ross will hear me. Tried to send
my kids running after you, but they just couldn't catch up!
Wilburn: I stand by my comments! (laughter)
Hayek: Terry?
Dickens: Nothing.
Hayek: I just wanted to note the passing of two individuals. Charles Wendt passed away,
a long -time member of the Music Faculty and a very highly regarded person in
Iowa City. A member of the Stradivari quartet, I believe. Um, and then Bob
Braverman, uh, passed, uh, yesterday and uh, highly respected individual. Made a
major impact on ... on local foods and the appreciation within our restaurant, uh,
population as to the importance of locally grown produce, and I know he'll be
missed.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.
Page 35
ITEM 24. REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF.
Hayek: City Manager?
Markus: Nothing.
Helling: Nothing.
Karr: Just one quick thing you have before you tonight a memo, uh, regarding the Joint,
uh, agenda with the, uh, School District and the local jurisdictions. Because of
your meeting schedule, the deadline for that is prior to your next meeting, so if
any of you have any agenda items, please let me know. That's tentatively
scheduled for August 24tH
Hayek: Thank you. Need a motion.
Bailey: So moved.
Wilburn: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? All those in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay. Motion carries 7 -0, and we are adjourned. (bangs gavel)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 2, 2011.