Loading...
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.