Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.21.2002• • COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 21, 2002 2:30 p.m. Council Chambers Members present: Welper, Clark, Hurley, Getty. Members absent: Berry, Greenwood, Jordan. Moved by Welper, seconded by Clark that the Agenda, as proposed, be approved. Ayes: Four. Absent: Berry, Greenwood, Jordan. Motion carried. Melissa Edsill, Associate Planner, introduced members of the Waterloo Historic Preservation Commission. Ms. Edsill referred to a letter from Randy Pilkington, 229 Alta Vista Avenue, concerning the Highland Historic neighborhood. Ms. Edsill reviewed the Historic Preservation Commission Ordinance. The powers and duties of the Commission were reviewed. Part of the general powers, duties and responsibilities of the commission is to advise and assist owners of sites or other historic structures on physical and financial aspects of preservation, renovation, rehabilitation, and reuse, and on procedures for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The commission reviews and makes decisions on any application for a certificate of appropriateness or through commission designee for a certificate of no material effect and require presentation of such plans, drawings, elevations and other information as may be necessary to make such decisions. The process is to fill out an application for appropriateness and provide information for the commission to review and attend the Commission meeting, if necessary. If the application is for a certificate of no material effect, staff reviews the application and approves the permit. Discussion was heard on vinyl siding versus aluminum siding. Color of the siding is not an issue, just synthetic material as the Department of Interior Standards sets out that no synthetic material can be used. Sue Pearson, a member of the Waterloo Historic Preservation Commission, stated that the Highland neighborhood was surveyed twice between 1905 and 1930, and white shingles were not in place at that time. The goal of Historic Preservation is to keep structures as they appeared in the era they were built. Ms. Pearson stated that the city's Historic Preservation Ordinance is very lenient as to paint color compared to other cities, and that reversible changes such as paint does not apply to historic preservation. Items that are permanent alterations to the building, such as roofs and door replacement, are more strictly adhered to. Ms. Edsill reported that Michael Douglas's original request to the Waterloo Historic Preservation Commission was to replace aluminum siding with vinyl siding. Then at the end of the discussion, Mr. Douglas requested to replace the aluminum siding with aluminum siding and the commission asked Mr. Douglas to come back to them to allow them time to look at the house. Ms. Edsill reviewed the application process. The application must be submitted two weeks prior to a commission meeting. The application is placed on the commission's agenda. The applicant can speak at the meeting. The commission makes a decision referencing the design guidelines. Ms. Pearson reported that members of the commission visited Mr. Douglas's house, but he was not at his home. Ms. Pearson stated a precedent has been set by allowing aluminum siding, which opposes Department of Interior guidelines and the State Historical Society. Ms. Pearson stated there are new alternatives on the market that are cost effective and give the appearance of wood and do not fade. Ms. Pearson stated the commission would welcome another application from Mr. Douglas to review this option. Ms. Pearson stated it is very rare for an individual to not be aware they are purchasing property in the district. Mr. Douglas is a real estate agent and has property he is selling in the district and highlights that the property is in the district. With no further business before the council, it was moved by Clark, seconded by Welper that the meeting be adjourned at 2:50 p.m. Ayes: Four. Absent: Berry, Welper, Jordan. Motion carried. Nancy Eckert City Clerk COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 21, 2002 3:30 p.m. Council Chambers Members present: Mayor Rooff, Welper, Clark, Jordan, Hurley, Getty. Members absent: Berry, Greenwood. Moved by Getty, seconded by Jordan that the Agenda, as proposed, be approved. Ayes: Five. Absent: Berry, Greenwood. Motion carried. The purpose of the work session was to review the Vision Iowa application. Don Temeyer, City Planner, reported that a resolution will be placed on the October 28, 2002 council agenda for authorization to submit an application to Vision Iowa for the proposed Cedar Valley Project. Mr. Temeyer distributed a combined project revenue and expenses chart. Jon Crews, Mayor of Cedar Falls, reviewed the proposed Cedar Falls Vision Iowa Project Construction Revenue for total project of $14,547,000 and application of $4,300,000 for Vision Iowa funds. Mayor Crews reviewed the proposed improvements to the soccer facility on Ridgeway Avenue. The cities of Waterloo and Cedar Falls would each contribute $300,000 and Black Hawk County would contribute $100,000 for the project. The project is requesting $550,000 from Vision Iowa for a total of $1,250,000 for the project. John Deere donated the land to the City of Waterloo and the Cedar Valley Youth Soccer Association is responsible for maintaining and managing the facility. Over 1,500 children from the Cedar Valley area use the soccer facility. Moved by Hurley, seconded by Welper that the council approve the concept of the City of Waterloo supporting a joint match of $300,000 for the soccer complex. Prior to a vote on the above motion, the following comments were heard. Mayor Crews reported that he took a telephone vote of the Cedar Falls Council Members and as of now there is no support for funding of the National Cattle Congress project. The City of Cedar Falls is committing $2 million to the UNI Dome/McLeod USA Exhibition, Events & Human Performance Center. Councilperson Clark stated he is 100 percent in support of cooperation, but he feels to commit $300,000 at this time is premature. Councilperson Hurley stated that his intent is to signal council support for this joint project. Councilperson Hurley asked Mayor Crews to take a message to Cedar Falls Council Members to look again at their commitment to UNI and to look at the National Cattle Congress request. Following comments a vote was take on the above motion with the following result. Ayes: Four. Nays: Getty. Absent: Berry, Greenwood. Motion carried. Mr. Temeyer stated that the city's proposed Cedar Valley Project includes the Cedar River Plaza and Amphitheater, Riverwalk Loop and the Cedar River Dam. A resolution needs to be adopted by the council next Monday as to which project they want included in the plan. Mayor Rooff stated that MidAmerican Energy will be talking with the city regarding the dam, but the Army Corps of Engineers will have the final say. Mr. Temeyer stated that the Army Corps of Engineers says that the bladder will work, it is cheaper and will have lower maintenance. Mayor Rooff stated that the city is using $1.2 million private donations for the Eastside Ministerial Alliance Community Center as part of the city's match. Mayor Rooff reviewed the projects for the city. COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 21, 2002 4:00 p.m. Council Chambers Mayor Rooff called the meeting to order at 4:25 p.m. Members present: Mayor Rooff, Welper, Clark, Jordan, Hurley, Getty. Members absent: Berry, Greenwood. Moved by Jordan, seconded by Getty that the Agenda, as proposed, be approved. Ayes: Five. Absent: Berry, Greenwood. Motion carried. Shannon Ahartz, Consulting Engineer from Kirkham Michael, reviewed the Interchange Justification Study for U.S. Highway 20/Ansborough Avenue. Mr. Ahartz reviewed the eight criteria required by Section III of Title 23, United States Code. Title 23 requires new or revised interstate highway access to be approved by the Federal Highway Administration before any access modification can be made. The Federal Highway Administration has established a policy to evaluate proposed access changes. The policy identifies the following eight criteria which each access must satisfy. 1. The existing interchanges and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the necessary access nor be improved to satisfactory accommodate the design -year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal. 2. All reasonable alternatives for design options, location and transportation system management type improvements (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and High Occupancy Vehicles facilities) have been assessed and provided for if currently justified or provisions are included for accommodating such facilities if a future need is identified. 3. The proposed access point does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the interstate facility based on an analysis of current and future traffic. The operational analysis for existing conditions shall, particularly in urbanized areas, include an analysis of section of interstate to and including at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on either side. Crossroads and other roads and streets shall be included in the analysis to the extent necessary to evaluate their ability to collect and distribute traffic to and from the interchange with new or revised access points. 4. The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than full interchanges for special purpose access for transit vehicles, for HOVs or into park and ride lots may be considered on a case -by -case basis. The proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards for Federal -Aid projects on the Interstate System. 5. The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans. Prior to final approval, all requests for new or revised access must be consistent with the metropolitan and/or state wide transportation plan, as appropriate, the applicable provisions of 23 Code of Federal Regulations part 450 and the transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. 6. In areas where the potential exists for future multiple interchange additions, all requests for new or revised access are supported by a comprehensive interstate network study with recommendations that address all proposed and desired access within the context of a long term plan. 7. The request for a new or revised access generated by new or expanded development demonstrates appropriate coordination between the development and related or otherwise required transportation system improvements. Council Work Session October 21, 2002 Page 2 8. The request for new or revised access contains information relative to the planning requirements and the status of the environmental processing of the proposal. Five alternative concepts, including the no -build, have been developed for an interchange at US 20 and Ansborough Avenue. The evaluation of operational characteristics was based on travel projections for the Year 2025. Mr. Ahartz stated that the preliminary design will help the council make a more informed decision as to which one of the four concepts to approve. Hugh Field asked if the land is not properly zoned, do we have enough numbers to justify an interchange. Mr. Ahartz responded that the traffic used is same as the 2020 Transportation Plan, and numbers depend on type of land use. Mr. Field stated that the proposed cost for the interchange is $3.7 million, with $680,000 city cost, and the city only budgeted $3.4 million so probably will need $1 million from the city. Mr. Field asked if this is the hottest project we have to spend on in this city. If it is not justified by numbers and if not properly zoned the city will not receive the RISE funds. Mr. Field suggested that the city look at Elk Run Road, which serves two of the largest industries in the city. Mr. Field stated he was not aware of any other discussion before the council regarding the interchange. To spend funds for a design study without zoning each comer, he thinks the entire subject should be exposed to a public hearing. Mr. Field stated the city needs to decide is this the project we want to spend $2.6 million of funds that could be used for roads in the city without a public hearing. Mr. Field stated that the cost for Ansborough south of the interchange and the cost for signalization is not included. Mr. Field stated that at the time Ansborough Avenue was widen, the city's engineer at that time said the city promised Ansborough Avenue would be widen only for local use and not as an arterial road. Mr. Field stated the city needs to hold a public hearing before proceeding with spending this money. Dave Nagle, representing a number of concerned citizens, reviewed the zoning map for the land involved with the interchange. Mr. Nagle stated that in order to construct the interchange, the city would have to change the zoning plan and land use plan. Mr. Nagle suggested that the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission hold a hearing and make a recommendation to the city council after the public hearing. Mr. Nagle stated that the biggest concern of everyone is when will there be a hearing, and they don't think there has been enough time to be heard. With all the land available and financial outlays committed, does the city really want to slam dunk this without an opportunity for the citizens to be heard. The citizens need a chance to be heard, particularly in light of the impact it would have on all the land we have available. Brian Blonigan, who lives near the proposed interchange, stated that it will no doubt shorten his commute a little, but it will also lower the quality of life for citizens who live in the area. Mr. Blonigan stated that special interests keep slipping the interchange back in. Mr. Blonigan stated he is disappointed because the best plan is to lower taxes and this will lower values. George Warren asked what impact will this have on the city. Mr. Warren stated this is a big decision and the council should consider the full ramifications to city and not just the little area out there. Mary Ellen Warren stated that when the interchange was first proposed in 1998, many people signed a petition and Dr. Frank Coil got many more names, and the petition is on file with INRCOG. The Iowa Department of Transportation said this interchange was not even in the five year plan. Ms. Warren stated there are other economic developments on the burner where the city should spend money. This proposal would build on prime agricultural land. With no further business before the council, it was moved by Getty, seconded by Jordan that the meeting be adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Ayes: Five. Absent: Berry, Greenwood. Motion carried. Nancy Eckert City Clerk Council Work Session October 21, 2002 Page 2 Councilperson Welper stated he hopes that we are not missing out on what Vision Iowa is all about. Vision Iowa was set up to keep the kids here, and he asked if these items will attract our young kids and keep them here. Mr. Temeyer responded that Vision Iowa is one funding source and we will have to tie in with the Brownfields funds. Mr. Temeyer stated that the plan calls for kayaking, canoeing, bicycling, etc. The Cedar River Plaza and amphitheater will attract our young. Councilperson Hurley stated if we do nothing, the city will not attract the young. Mr. Temeyer explained the Gateway funds. The Gateway funds will be used for acquisition of property along the corridor so the city can acquire some of the properties. John Holmes, attorney for the National Cattle Congress, distributed an overview of the National Cattle Congress Project and a map of the proposed buildings. The projects includes Phase I at a cost of $16,377,000, Phase II at a cost of $9,705,000, and Phase III at a cost of $10,000,000 for a grand total of $36,042,000. The National Cattle Congress is including Phase I in the application for Vision Iowa funds. Mr. Holmes reviewed the proposed livestock building which will feature live farm animals in a real -farm setting. Mr. Holmes reviewed the Visitor's Center which will feature opportunities for relaxation and access to all buildings. Mr. Holmes reviewed the National Cattle Congress five year projected profit and loss summary, financial statements, income and expenses projected by profit center, the impact of fairs and exhibits, a letter from Richard Donnelly regarding impact of major events on a city. Mr. Holmes stated that the National Cattle Congress is requesting $4 million in Vision Iowa funds and $4 million from the City of Waterloo. Mr. Holmes suggested that the city could use the funds they are going to receive from the Black Hawk Solid Waste Commission or bonds for its $4 million contribution to the National Cattle Congress. Mr. Holmes reported that the National Cattle Congress was recognized by the state as exempt from taxes, and that Chapter 174 regulates fairs. The language used in the Articles of Incorporation is standard, boiler plate. The National Cattle Congress has no shares of stocks outstanding. Councilperson Hurley stated that Vision Iowa will probably require the National Cattle Congress to provide insurance for its employees. Mr. Holmes responded that Tab D of the application addresses the insurance issue and they have approved that. Mayor Rooff suggested that the council hold another meeting this week to review the National Cattle Congress request. With no further business before the council, it was moved by Getty, seconded by Jordan that the meeting be adjourned at 4:21 p.m. Ayes: Five. Absent: Berry, Greenwood. Motion carried. Nancy Eckert City Clerk • •