HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-15 Transcription July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 1
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session 6:30 PM
Council: Lehman, Champion, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Pfab, Kanner
Staff: Atkins, Helling, Karr, Dilkes, Franklin, Fosse, Long, Tallman, Hightshoe,
McCafferty, O'Malley
TAPES: 02-56, SIDE TWO; 02-60, BOTH SIDES; 02-61, SIDE ONE
Joint Meeting with Planning & Zoning (wetlands #5)
P & Z Chair Anne Bovbjerg, Members: Ann Freerks, Dean Shannon, Jerry Hansen,
Benjamin Chiat, Donald Anciaux, Elizabeth Koppes
Lehman/Tomorrow night we're going to be looking at Sensitive Areas Ordinance relative
to wetlands, and just a little background we received a recommendation from
Karin Franklin after the Supreme Court decision indicated that if what
jurisdictional wetlands and what did not and the Council at that time sent the
ordinance back to Planning & Zoning to retain the features that had originally been
in effect prior to the Supreme Court decision. At the last Council meeting we had
a public hearing, there seems to be, there may be some disagreement on the part of
the Council as to whether or not this is a direction we want to go so if we are in a
situation where a majority of the Council isn't going to approve what you folks
have approved we need to talk about it so.
Marian Karr/Ernie excuse me before we start would you mind if we did introductions so !
could check.
Lehman/I'm sorry, yes let's go around starting with you Ms. Champion.
Champion/Connie Champion, City Council.
O'Donnell/Mike O'Donnell.
Kanner/Steven Kanner.
Pfab/Irvin Pfab.
Donald Anciaux/Donald Anciaux.
Ann Freerks/Ann Freerks.
Jerry Hansen/Jerry Hansen
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 2
Dean Shannon/Dean Shannon.
Beth Koppes/Beth Koppes.
Wilburn/Ross Wilburn.
Vanderhoef/Dee Vanderhoef.
Ann Bovbjerg/Ann Bovbjerg.
Lehman/And Benjamin Chait just arrived. Okay. Yea I'm Ernie. Obviously we have
several choices, we can agree to the recommendation with the recommendation
that was originally given to us by Karin Franklin, we can agree with the
recommendation as passed by Planning & Zoning Commission or we can do
something in between. Now we've had some Council persons who have
expressed some interest in making it more restrictive, I think we have Council
persons who have an interest in making it less restrictive so if you have comments
about the discussions that. Well I suppose, yea I guess I would be interested in,
and I'm sure the rest of the Council is in the discussion relative to the ordinance
you gave to us.
Ann Bovbjerg/Our meeting that we voted on it was May 2nd and the minutes give a very
good discussion of our discussion and an analysis of what we thought, and I would
say and a couple of things that in summary is that what we saw was that this was a
return to what we have had a year ago before the Corps, the district, the court
decision came down so that we thought this was essentially was keeping the things
the way they were except for a hiatus of one year. We had some ideas that we
could make it a little more restrictive enough but we just thought this is getting it
back to where it was, it's only been a year, let's go with it because this city has
valued wetlands for all the reasons that have been stated in all the information that
we got. We had, I think we were surprised that there was a problem from the
public that came up to the Council meeting because nobody came up to us and I
know that everybody doesn't always come up to us and tell us problems, they feel
that your the right contact but I think we wondered if development and building
had really been so thrown over by the previous that it should not be retained. We
wondered whether in the past year building and development had been so different
that going back to a year ago is going to be an enormous change. There are a
couple of things in the material that we got that you had gotten, one to the City
Council from the City Manager wondering about regulations relative to other
jurisdictions and I think as with some other things that have been before Planning
& Zoning what we have to do when we look at it and I think that the City has to
do is say what is best for the wetlands in Iowa City, what is best for Iowa City and
not whether or not the County will do this. I'm not sure because I didn't look into
it that closely what the problems were that the Home Builder's Association were
talking about. There have been some inventories, there has been analysis of the
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 3
benefits of preserving wetlands, what I, and I don't know what it is that they think
can be done, but again the question comes up has development in building been so
hampered or so freed because of the court restriction that it's worth doving into.
The other one is ! don't know to what extent staff is recommending against it or is
neutral, ! don't know what the split was or what their concerns were, ! don't see
another level of review since we've had sensitive areas ordinance, we've had this
particular concern about wetlands for a number of years and it seems to me that
the bottom final line is that this is going back to where we were which seemed to
work. And so our question is are there some real obstacles? Are there really some
business or natural problem with going back to where we were?
Lehman/One of the big differences is that the original ordinance I believe and Karin you
can do this by nodding your head but when it was under, when isolated wetlands
were part of jurisdictional wetlands we had the benefit of the Corps of Engineers
when it came to dealing with them, is that not correct? If we're dealing with
wetlands that are not under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps that means we deal
with them ourselves, with our own engineering department or developers do and
we're talking about a very small amount of wetlands that wouldn't be jurisdictional
which ! suspect there may be a cost benefit concern as to whether or not it's worth
going after the small ones. We don't have an inventory, and ! have asked, ! asked
Karin some time ago how much problem it would be to inventory, well ! suppose
everything within the growth area which is a significant task and one that the City
probably is not going to undertake which means will be passed, if we agree to this
we will be regulating areas for which we have no inventory.
Bovbjerg/What about case by case, does the planning staff feel or the engineering staff
feel that if you walk in and the acreage has no wetlands then (can't hear).
Lehman/We're going to ask the.
Wilburn/Well that was the, when we had talked about this when it was first presented we
had talked about trying to handle it by case by case basis to review (can't hear).
Yea and you had (can't hear) had pointed out from the half acre to acre range the
relatively small number that we may be talking about, that's my recollection.
Bovbjerg/The steep slopes and all those kinds of things are already looked at, ! mean we
do have some things growing on those but you either put up slopes (can't hear).
Lehman/Yea but all we're talking about here are wetlands.
Karin Franklin/The process would be that if someone came in with a development plan
and which it showed that on our sensitive areas inventory map there were Hydrex
soils. They would then be given the responsibility of making a determination by
engaging a wetland specialist as to whether there were wetlands that meet the
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 4
definition with the hydric soils, the hydric vegetation and the periods of inundation.
If those criteria were met and if a wetland were present and how big it was.
Lehman/Would we then verify their findings?
Franklin/It would have to, no it would be done by a wetland specialist which would be
certified by that specialist. It's very similar to requiring an engineer to certify, that
their licensing is dependent upon their integrity in making those certifications.
Lehman/What would trigger this?
Franklin/It would be triggered by the presence of hydric soils on our sensitive areas
inventory map.
Lehman/Oh okay.
Franklin/See the map was done with secondary sources, the soil surveys of Johnson
County and other information. It was not done by walking the entire city and
making an analysis so what's shown on the sensitive areas inventory map are the
hydric soils which is just one of the characteristics of a wetland. But it's an
indicator that the wetland may be possible.
Bovbjerg/Is it also true that all the hydric soils and not all the wetlands are on (can't
hear)?
Franklin/It's certainly possible, yea.
Bovbjerg/We had one before us that had a problem.
Vanderhoef/And does it take all three?
Franklin/Characteristics to make a wetland yes.
Bovbjerg/How much inventory of the city is there already on that or is it secondary
sources met?
Franklin/The sensitive areas inventory covers the corporate limits and the growth area.
Anciaux/And did you do those through soil maps?
Franklin/We used to have one in here.
Anciaux/Was that done through the Soil Conservation Service or the Geologic Survey
or?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 5
Franklin/We did that by engaging a consultant, it was RUST at the time, I think it's Earth
Tech now, and hired them to do that inventory back prior to the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
Freerks/Wouldn't the presence of hydric soils be something that a developer would want
to know anyway?
Franklin/What yea, one would think yea.
Freerks/So it's not like something that you would solely be searching for just to find a
wetland, but you would want to know that information in order to put the property
development in the (can't hear).
Franklin/Right, right.
Champion/Well I was one of the ones that was interested in keeping our own ordinance in
the beginning of this and why it was originally sent to you. As I talked to, there
are Environmentalists out there that feel very strongly that we should actually
(can't hear) environmentalists that think it's not important that we go beyond the
federal guidelines. And I think we're creating, by going back another level of
bureaucracy to get something done and I think we put enough (can't hear) in
people's way to get development going and to move forward that to be holier than
the law is just making rules because we can make them so I'm not going to
support going back to the old ordinance (can't hear).
Pfab/Can you explain? I thought you said the old ordinance is okay and then you say
your not going to go back (can't hear). Did I understand you correctly?
Champion/Correct.
Kanner/Yea I didn't understand that either, the law holier.
Champion/Well there's an old saying in the Catholic church which I hate to bring up with
all the problems but don't be holier than the Pope. And I'm wondering if being
holier than the Pope by making rules because we have the right to make them that
goes beyond the scope of the law that's already in place.
Lehman/Which is the federal law.
Champion/Right.
Pfab/But the law wasn't placed before.
Champion/I know.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 6
Pfab/And you don't want to go back to that.
Champion/No.
Pfab/I guess.
Vanderhoef/One of my concerns, actually ! had a couple and the first one was the cost
and the time involved which is also cost and the cost is to both the City because
we will have to have a trained specialist who can inspect them and keep track of
them and the other part is on the very small isolated ones there are some properties
that would take away development in such a way that it may not be feasible to
develop on the property if it's extra small and if these wetlands are turned over to
either the home owner or to a homeowner's association then we're going to have
differences of opinions by those groups of people of what constitutes maintaining
that wetland and how will we use it and is there truly any benefit to the isolated
wetland in that it's purpose is to have habitat for the animals. It is also to be a
cleansing kind of thing for the waters. When ! get closer and closer to the river
and the creek it's one of those things that it will show up there but a single little
isolated one that is far enough back from the creek then that is not necessarily of
any kind of benefit as near as ! can see, it would depend on size but many of them
will be so small.
Freerks/Your talking an acre or large what's on the table.
Lehman/No, it's not, what.
Vanderhoef/Half.
Lehman/Half acre, right.
Anciaux/Are you leaning towards maybe making a 5 acre designation or some kind of,
because an isolated wetland is 5 acres in size?
Vanderhoef/I don't think so at this point, I'm thinking if there were 5 acre ones out there
we'd be aware of them right now and I've asked about them and the only ones !
think that Karin mentioned to us was if we got into a man made pond that
potentially if we annexed where there was a farm pond one of those kinds of things
that that could be a question whether it was truly a wetland or whether it was just
wet because of the man made pond.
Wilburn/! think the other thing you need to, or at least what I'm trying to put into
consideration is beyond the aesthetics of a wetland or it's proximity to you know a
visual blue line waterway is just the what role collectively these smaller and I'm
talking the half acre and above wetlands may have in helping you know flood
control and recharging the water table aqua fir and that type of thing and ! guess
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 7
it' s just whether your own choice whether you think that it may play an important
role in that, you know whether, talk about cost and those type of things if you look
at flooding and those type of things whether or not you think it's a value. You
know we're going to be looking at different issue, but we're going to be looking at
storm water regulation coming up and ! guess ! just view this as another way to try
and take a reasonable way again the half acre and above at trying to do what we
can as a community to protect that water supply.
Lehman/Ross, as storm water management goes I would suspect that if there is value to a
wetland in controlling storm water it would have to have an inlet or an outlet
which would make it jurisdictional, ! mean that would be covered anyway.
O'Donnell/Not necessarily true, from the size of it Ernie there will, from reading wetlands
will soak up water just fine.
Lehman/No but.
Wilburn/And their proximity to each other, ! mean if your using that sponge analogy the
different holes on the sponge just collectively might help recharge the areas, water
supplier or collectively you know impact flooding or that type of thing. And you
know it's your own personal, we talk about cost benefit analysis ! think there's
some things where it's difficult to obtain a strict dollar cost benefit analysis and so
I'm trying to look at this a little broader than that. Even though ! don't think it's
something that you can to everyone's satisfaction come up with a cost benefit
analysis so.
Lehman/Oh ! think that' s.
Pfab/! have a question for Dee. Your saying if I'm, I'm saying this for clarification. Are
you saying that you had a problem with the way the engineer's granted, the Corps
of Engineers? Because your saying you don't want to maintain that any better.
Vanderhoef/The Corps of Engineers have the experts already in place and it was their job
to do that.
Pfab/To do what? Designate them.
Vanderhoef/To determine whether an area was or was not a wetland. But now they're
not going to do that for the isolated ones, and so the cost of doing that comes back
onto the developer first off but then the city incur the cost because they will have
to inspect them and make sure they're maintained and so we're going to have to
have specialists within the city that is also able to look at wetlands, the isolated
wetland.
Pfab/Are you saying the Corps of Engineers previously inspected those?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 8
Vanderhoef/They were in charge of them and if there were any complaints they went to
the Corps of Engineers.
Pfab/Are you aware of any complaints that took care of?
Vanderhoef/I don't know.
Pfab/But listening to what Karin said there are people available and it didn't appear to
be a huge amount of cost but to the value of the citizens and the future citizens of
Iowa City is this something that we want to deprive the next generations of? I
mean it may be a little more costly to us as you go through this and develop it but
you look down the road as we have more difficulty trying to keep our (can't hear)
as the population increases and storm water because more places are covered. I
think that there might be a minimal cost, and I think pretty minimal at this point.
But if you look down the road.
Vanderhoef/What do you call minimal, out of curiosity?
Pfab/Well I'll ask you the question first, what did you say was very costly?
Vanderhoef/What I'm talking about is a full time staff person.
Pfab/No, no, no.
Vanderhoef/Who has the qualifications.
Freerks/Karin is that true?
Lehman/No it won't be a full time staff person.
Vanderhoef/Well but they have to be qualified, it doesn't mean they won't be doing other
things for the city but you have to hire someone with the expertise.
Franklin/Right now Julie Tallman is in charge of enforcement for the sensitive areas
ordinance and she deals with the wetlands issues as well as the slopes and wooded
areas and everything. We did not anticipate that by continuing the ordinance as it
was prior to Swank that we would need to hire an additional person.
Vanderhoef/But you have to have a trained person?
Franklin/Yes and Julie has some training in wetlands.
Vanderhoef/I saw that and congratulations to her.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 9
Franklin/However I don't, well that was about flood plain management but I don't think
that and since she's here I'll just ask her this question. I don't think that she has
certification.
Tallman/No, there is no certification for the program. (Can't hear).
Franklin/You've got to come to the microphone. Yes.
Wilburn/Yes since we have the commission members present I'll just ask you, I just
wanted the factor that I'm looking at in the from the court case was that it put it
up to local jurisdiction as to whether or not this is something, it's the local, it's the
decision of state and local municipalities as to whether or not for you to decide, is
this important enough for you in terms of that cost benefit type of thing and so as
when you had this discussion or just hearing some of the things that Council has
decided tonight. What is your opinion about potential benefit to the area whether
it be flood control, water quality. Can I hear just some of your thoughts on that?
Any other factors that kind of tossed up.
O'Donnell/I want to ask a question first. Was your decision based on what the Council
sent back (can't hear)?
Bovbjerg/Based upon what?
O'Donnell/We looked at this and clearly wanted to go beyond what was federally
regulated and it was sent back was it not?
Bovbjerg/Oh yea, we had the information, you had asked us to look at it and so that's
what we did.
O'Donnell/It was your decision based, influenced by sending it back to you.
Bovbjerg/You mean because you sent it, did we approve of it? Could we have
disapproved of it?
O'Donnell/Yes.
Lehman/Certainly.
Bovbjerg/I don't think we're that intimated.
(All talking)
O'Donnell/The question was, the Council approval did that affect your decision?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 10
Bovbjerg/We felt it was the right thing to go back to where we were. In general I would
say there's almost always the possibility of any jurisdiction to go beyond
restrictions of a superior jurisdiction like state can go beyond Feds, we can go
beyond the state, we go beyond the county and we felt we clearly could in this case
and in some cases of wetlands previously in the last few years it's quite notable
that the Corps of Engineers has not done what many people have considered the
right thing which is just a historical thing.
O'Donnell/The right thing.
Bovbjerg/I mean sometimes they would look at something and say we could do without
this wetland and people on the scene and people on the scene, not just Iowa City
people on the scene would say is this actually more important than the Corps
thought it was? But I think once that Irvin and Ross brought up about recharging,
maintaining a sponge is real because you don't know what's happening underneath
that ground and if it's a wetland there's probably a wetland next to it and below it
and you fill it and put a house on it and there are problems and there are those
valued beyond particular kind of plant or animal, I mean it's what the land has been
comfortable with and going back to the way we have all been treating it before
seemed to us to make a lot of sense.
O'Donnell/Well I guess I have more faith in the builder than to think they're going to
build a house over a wetland and I also think that a builder would utilize this as an
asset to develop a true wetland but I don't believe that in this case that we need to
be stricter than what's federally regulated. Any, each level of regulation we put
on, somebody absorbs that cost and that cost is passed on.
Bovbjerg/But I think, what was influential to us was that this is in a sense, except for a
one year hiatus a continuation of what was always done. What our other
commissioners (can't hear).
Shannon/Well I voted to keep roughly what is in place because it seems like it's been
working, I haven't heard a huge problem with the way it's been done in the past.
And what I'm looking at is past that, I don't want to see the city have one area, I
wanted a level playing field, I don't, once the city gets into a, I don't want my city
to get into a one area's one way and the other area's another way and so when I
looked at it I don't, maybe I don't fully understand the whole thing but generally it
seems like it's working. Maybe for the time being we should stick with exactly the
same rules the government's got and go with it from there. But I'd like to see the
even level playing field that one builder's got to follow an area that's under the
jurisdiction of the government, maybe it would be easier for us to do the same
thing and follow the same rules and at least we won't have people coming in
saying well that wasn't fair or that's how I voted.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 11
Lehman/Wait a minute though, I think what you just said, the federal regulations now
cover jurisdictional wetlands only. In the absence of adopting the work that you
have folks have done and given to us we would be under the federal guidelines
which means that only jurisdictional wetlands would be enforced, whether it would
be Iowa City, or Coralville or North Liberty or any place else, we would be using
federal guidelines. If we adopt the ordinance as you have worked it up for us we
would then be more restrictive.
Shannon/Okay well I just, that' s not, maybe that' s not exactly how I thought we were.
Lehman/But that is what we're doing. Now at the time the original ordinance was passed
and Karin correct me if I'm wrong, those were federal guidelines, and my
suspicion is that the federal government set the guidelines, we didn't. Now the
federal government has changed the guidelines and they're going to be enforcing a
different set of rules, we're forced with whether or not we want to continue the
more stringent rules that were previously required by the government or to adopt
the same rules that the Army Corps now has as was set out by the Supreme Court
and we're hearing some folks say let's adopt the federal regulations, and where
other folks saying that they aren't stringent enough.
Wilburn/And could legal refresh my recollection. Was it not that, it's not, is it fair to say
it's not the case that the court was saying cities can not do this but that it's for
cities to decide if they want to continue doing this?
Lehman/Right.
Dilkes/Well more accurately the issue before the court was whether the federal
government had the authority to regulate isolated wetlands.
Wilburn/All right, thank you.
Freerks/Well I think another thing to maybe think about is the federal government doesn't
have a sensitive areas ordinance, that's something that we as a community has
decided is a valuable asset and something that we should work with to try to
maintain those areas which seem to be precious in one way or the other. And I
think it's easy sometimes to look at a tree covered slope and see it as a sensitive
area and see the beauty of it and the value of it in that way. But of course we
know that there are other reasons why we wouldn't want to have that clear cut
graded and altered in such a way that it could create problems for not just that
environment but those around and I think the same holds true probably with the
idea of wetlands, I think the beauty of a wetland, if we're just talking about that
and not just beauty and physical beauty but in beauty it what it does. It can't be
seen as readily perhaps as a tree covered slope and if we're going to say that we
need to try to manage sensitive areas I think we have to look at the wetlands as
well. And the fact that developers need to know if there are hydric soils anyway
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 12
they're going to be searching for that information and trying to deal with it in some
fashion anyway and so I don't really see it as many layers of additional beauracracy
but in some cases there could be some I think. And I think there's probably a
benefit overall, I know that there's, I think the figure is one percent of the state's
original wetland is still in tact and that includes isolated wetlands, that's every little
piece in included in that if I've read some information that was distributed here,
and that doesn't just mean things that are attached to (can't hear). And so I think,
but there's also just a valuable purpose in wetland and I think that someone here
submitted some information, for example a tablespoon of gasoline will render a
thousand gallons of water unfit for consumption but a wetland the size of a living
room will recondition a thousand gallons of water in 30 to 60 days, that's
something to think about.
Lehman/Let me ask you, during your discussions what was the, the size of the wetland
ever, the size as it appears in the ordinance is one half acre, is that a magic number
from your perspective?
Freerks/I think anything's better than nothing of course.
Hansen/I think we had an awful lot of discussion about the size and how to creatively
divide property to get around an issue. You know the thought occurs to me that
as federal and state governments, they allow a lot of responsibilities to cut their
own budgets, that they're putting them on the backs of state and local people here
and that could be one of the reasons why they wanted to withdraw restrictions.
You know an old song lyric keeps coming to mind, you know pave a paradise and
pave a parking lot and I think that we sell ourselves short for today on what we're
going to get tomorrow on what we're going to get tomorrow out of these things, I
think that they're very important. You know like Anne says you can't see the
beauty of a wetland it looks like a pile of weeds laying there or something when
it's not doing it's thing with flood water or rain water or whatever and yet it has an
extremely valuable purpose and I don't know that there's that many pieces of
property in Iowa City that are less than half an acre that would be done. In the
year that the ordinance was changed, I think three different wetlands were filled in
and I just think we're selling ourselves short for what we need tomorrow.
O'Donnell/What was that song?
Hansen/Pave paradise and put up a parking lot.
Lehman/Well I think, are there any other comments from commissioners? Obviously
we're going to, the public hearing still open on this? Well anyway we'll be acting
tomorrow night. Are there other comments from the commissioners?
Kanner/(Can't hear)
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 13
Kanner/First a comment, again reiterating what was said, maybe we're like some bishops
Connie, we're making our bishop statement which is allowed on Supreme Court
ruling and it should be emphasized what the Supreme Court is actually saying we
should do, the city should make that decision and so I don't think we're being
holier than the pope up there.
Champion/Probably not.
Kanner/My concern, I think at the minimum we need to pass this but my concern is, Anne
you said a number of times this brings us back to the original ordinance, the
original regulation but it doesn't in fact, as was just mentioned it leaves out
development greater than single family home that's under a half an acre. Even
though we don't have an inventory of what the wetland, my suspicion that most of
the isolated wetlands are going to be under a half an acre and so I have a real
concern that we're not going to regulate those, where as it was regulated to a
certain extent by the Corps of Engineers. They had some discretion from going
from a tenth of an acre up a half an acre whether or not to do mitigation or some
other thing, payments in lieu of mitigation or preserving the wetlands. And I was
wondering if you could talk a little more about this size issue if you folks had any
further discussion, if, what your feelings are about actually getting back to the
original regulatory status for wetlands under the Corps of Engineers which went
down to a tenth of an acre.
Bovbjerg/The first thing you have to know is the history of what did the Corps do for a
tenth of an acre wetlands and my guess is not very much. I don't know if they
went around to every town in the United States to do that. One of our discussions
was if you had a wetland could you parcel it out so that each part would be
different. All those questions finally come down to you can always write one more
line of the regulation and it can be one more way of getting around it so at one
point you draw a line and say okay that's it, this is what we'll vote on. And we felt
what was practicable and what was fairly historical or at least recent was the thing
to go on. What I personally, and I don't know about other commission members,
what I personally would not like to see would be someone saying this is the reason
it costs money to build in Iowa City this is why developers go name your town.
There are many reasons people go to other places, there are many reasons people
build here, supply and demand on lots will send the lot prices up much higher here
than they are somewhere else. And so it would seem to me that using, unless we
really know that the last year or so has had a really detrimental or a really positive
affect because of a new change on development on Iowa City seems to me that
going back to where we were would be very reasonable, it's what the development
community and the citizens have been used to and it seems to have worked. It is
always possible legally to be more strict than an upper jurisdiction, you have a
smoking ordinance, you have an alcohol ordinance, you have a.
O'Donnell/Let's not talk about those.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 14
Bovbjerg/No what I'm saying you have speed limits, I mean you have things that you can
make stricter than other jurisdictions over you and the court essentially said
Congress over stepped, fell back but if you want to do that locally you may. And I
think that's where City Council's have to come down and if, if we're the first in the
County and the first in the state, the state's been having a tough time with filter
strips along streams, or farms for 25 years and they're finally getting to say hey it's
a good thing, why didn't you tell us about them and people have been working on
them for 25 years or hitting their heads if they're still alive. But it's this kind of
thing, I don't think it makes us (can't hear) and sweet and holier than thow, I think
it makes us doing the right thing if that is what we want to do with our soil
because it has recharging, it has benefits that we can't see.
Kanner/And actually Anne, just answer your question further about what the Corps did, I
talked with the Corps of Engineers district office and in Rock Island. And one of
the things they did was they would offer the opportunity to go in with mitigation
or new wetlands creation with groups like the Sierra Club, that was one of the
things they did, and they did take an active hand according to this person in
regulating wetlands down to a tenth of an acre so there was strong regulation I
believe by the Corps of Engineers. And so if we were to adopt, whatever standard
we adopt of course there's no guarantee that it's going to work, there's no
guarantee, mitigation is not the answer either but it's done, it has a so so success
rate as you probably are aware of and so there's no guarantee but I think we need
to get to back to where we started from which is regulating down to (can't hear).
I don't think we're going to save many wetlands under a half an acre.
Lehman/(can't hear).
Hansen/I think there's some areas of the city that this is going to show up in and I think
that's probably why the half acre worked for me and it's probably in the Snider
Creek bottoms that we're going to be seeing quite a bit more development in the
future and I think there's a lot of pocketed areas in that section that are going to
have to be looked at and I think if you go up to five acres I think all those wetlands
will probably just be filled. And I think that that Snider Creek bottom has a huge
ecological impact on that area in cleansing the water.
Lehman/Wouldn't most of those wetlands be jurisdictional in the Snyder Creek area?
Kanner/I would imagine they are blue lined.
Lehman/I imagine most of those are regulated anyway.
Hansen/No I think they're scattered all across the south section of ground in the
Napoleon Heights area and.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 15
Bovbjerg/You'd have to depend, you'd have to wonder how and when the map was made
and for whom, the dotted line is and for someone else that might not be, and you
know whether they were wet years or dry years. A lot of this came up about 10
years ago when there was a lot of development was starting down in that section
of town. You know before people always developed where it was easy to build,
you know flat and dry and suddenly this area of town came up and people began to
say this needs some protection, this needs help and for the builders and the people
and for what are we charging in for the people down stream.
Hansen/And I think P & Z heard a lot of complaints from farmers that were getting more
flooding as to the north of them, the ground was being built and I just think that
area of town especially is going to be hard hit if you go back up to five acres.
Vanderhoef/I've got a technical question and I don't know whether anyone has an answer
for it or not but Jerry you got me thinking about, when you talked about farmlands
and Snyder Creek and so forth. Typically throughout Iowa over the years farm
fields have been tiled and drained and yes they have drained a lot of wetlands, how
do we look at that when we have bare ground and we may or may not know
whether it is presently tiled and how do we get into determining what is a wetland
and what isn't?
Franklin/ You still go back to the three characteristics of a wetland, the hydric soils, the
hydric (can't hear) vegetation and the inundation period.
Vanderhoef/But if the tile is taking the water away.
Franklin/Okay if the tile is taking the water away then the hydric vegetation won't be
there.
Lehman/Right.
Franklin/It's unlikely.
Lehman/It won't be allowed.
Franklin/You won't have the periods of inundation that are required. Now what can
happen sometimes is that as the land use starts to change from farm land to, let's
say it' s just fallow for a while. And the tiles have broken up then one phenomena
one sees is that those wetlands start to reemerge. But if your going straight from
farmland that's been tiled or you've got a piece of farmland that's been tiled and it
comes in for a development project chances are your not going to find a wetland
on there because it's been tiled.
Vanderhoef/But what recourse if we had this in place, what recourse would the city have
and when the developer goes in those tiles are not very deep so those tiles are
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 16
going to get broken up with the development activity. So here we have a new
emerging wetland after the fact.
Franklin/Chance, ! think, now ! am not an expert here, but I'm just trying to use some
common sense. Chances are that that's not going to happen because as
development happens there's going to be a storm sewer system put in place. And a
lot of that water that would have sat there which is why the tile is there is not
going to sit there because it's not got an urban setting to it and it has a storm
water system that's drawing off that water just as the tile system used to. Rick's
here, isn't he, Rick Fosse. Is that, does that make sense?
Kanner/Yea it seems to me what your saying is basically it would not be protected under
this proposed ordinance.
Vanderhoef/Right.
Kanner/Actually ! think though you make a case of why we need to be more proactive
and bring some of those back but that's another case. We want more of those
(can't hear).
Freerks/For me ! think this is kind of a compromise in a way, and a good compromise,
think sometimes the best decision falls between too extreme and this is what it is
just me, not just because I'm a Libra.
Hansen/And I'd agree with Anne on that too because ! was the one who proposed the
creative divided property on how it was going to affect any given wetland area and
! was for a much more stringent ordinance but yet half an acre to me was a
compromise that made sense.
Lehman/Okey doke. Well at least we've had an opportunity to visit about it so, thank
you folks, we'll see you again tomorrow night.
Plannin~ & Zonin~ Matters
A. VACATING 32,710 SQUARE FEET OF FRONTAGE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AT 801 HIGHWAY 1 WEST.
(VAr02-00001)
Franklin/All right first item is a public hearing vacating 32,710 square feet of frontage
property on 801 Highway One West, this is the.
Lehman/Carousel.
Champion/Carousel Motors.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 17
Franklin/Carousel Motors property, Marian could I have the? Okay what this illustration
shows is the triangular piece of property for which it's the motivation behind, is at
least part of the motivation behind vacating this street frontage. The street
frontage in question is here in front of Carousel and what they want to do is have
access to this triangular where they intend to put a building. What was required
was they provide some landscaping in front of the building, and this illustration
shows one of the first plans that came in that was not the plan that was approved.
Let me just see if, no, sorry. Okay the plan that was approved by the Planning &
Zoning Commission and the staff has this area in here totally landscaped, we went
back and forth a number of times with them about this but now the plan that is part
of this approval has that area totally landscaped. So if you look at the frontage
road what is there now in terms of a median in this area that will be removed, they
will use the space entirely up to the edge of this paving and then there will be
landscaping along.
(END OF 02-56, SIDE TWO)
Franklin/Properties along Highway 1 in which we've had any rezoning or change
requested in which we got a landscaping area between the highway and the
property.
Lehman/Between the frontage road and the highway will be the landscaped area.
Franklin/Right, right.
Kanner/Karin, if you change that, would you show again where the frontage road is that
we're speaking of vacating.
Franklin/That one, now that doesn't mean that the paving is going away, what it means is
we will vacate it as a frontage road and then it will be conveyed, Item 18 is setting
a public hearing on the conveyance. It will be conveyed to Carousel Motors and
they would use it for their commercial development. So essentially what you have
seen for years that we've kind of struggled with that is cars displayed on that
frontage road, will be displayed not on a frontage road but on Carousel Motors
because they'll buy it from us.
Lehman/Right.
Franklin/The other benefit to us in this whole thing is moving right now, this is a drive
that goes into a frontage road and that will be moved farther south which is a
benefit for the functioning of Ruppert Road as it intersects with Highway 1. Are
there any questions?
Kanner/Yea, a couple, could you show Ruppert Road on the big map again please?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 18
Franklin/That's Ruppert Road, it's the road that comes into our North Airport
Commercial Park and also accesses Cub, is that still there?
Kanner/Okay yea I know where it's at.
Vanderhoef/So where is the drive now, the new drive?
Franklin/It's down here.
Lehman/Right south.
Franklin/It' s not very far south Dee but it' s just a, this is the old, and then it comes down
to here.
Vanderhoef/And off to the right of that map is Highway 17
Franklin/This is Highway 1.
Vanderhoef/Okay.
Kanner/Now I don't have trouble conveying this to them but in the notes from staff it said
that it would be a fair exchange for redoing some of this I guess for a frontage
road and I don't know if that's quite a fair exchange, it seems to me that there
was usage on the frontage road wasn't there over the last 10 years? The argument
is that we made them set this frontage road aside to give to the city for future.
Franklin/Actually we made them buy it from the state, and then dedicate it to the city
because we thought we were going to want a frontage road there and then we
decided we didn't want a frontage road there because it was too close to the
highway and now with the vacation we want them to buy it again. And so what
we were looking at was kind of making a quick pro quo, the landscaping, the
movement of the driveway to the south as benefits that have some value that could
be seen as a quick pro quo for the value of the frontage road. And I mean you
can judge that differently yourself certainly.
Kanner/But my question is didn't they get any use of that frontage road over the last 10
years?
Franklin/Oh sure.
Kanner/So there, it's not like it was of no value to them, we made them go through this
and then they had no value, we felt it was good for the planning of the city to have
this at that time and they got some value out of it and I have some trouble, it
seems that what we might be doing is similar to what the Airport did and they give
reductions in rent for in-kind payment and I would feel better if we took payment
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 19
directly for square footage that were giving them and work out some other deal
perhaps if we wanted to for the street (can't hear). I think they're getting a good
deal in return.
Champion/They gave it to us once, they gave it to us, they gave it to us, they're the ones
who originally purchased it.
Lehman/Well that's going to come under Item 18 when we, tomorrow night.
Franklin/Yea I mean really that is an issue for discussion during the actual conveyance,
the vacation is one part, the conveyance is another part.
Lehman/Right, right.
Vanderhoef/The city built the access road when it was put in, (can't hear) required it?
Champion/No.
Franklin/No, that was part of the subdivision requirement.
Lehman/So they built it they paid for it.
Vanderhoef/So they built that also, okay.
Lehman/All right.
Pfab/I have a question for Karin. How is that going to change the visual, what is the
visual landscape there for people driving by?
Champion/It's going to look a lot better.
Franklin/Well I think it will make it better especially when you accept the reality right or
wrong that right now cars are parked all along the frontage road. That instead of
just having the right of way trees in this space we will have vegetation, it's a
landscaping plan that includes some shrubbery, some flowers that will be in this
area and make it more attractive than what's there right now.
Pfab/Are you saying that if we make a, amount of cars will not go onto that property?
Franklin/No the cars will use as their doing today or yesterday when I was over there,
there will be cars along this, it will be a display space for Carousel Motors.
Pfab/And how far will that be from the exit, the edge?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 20
Franklin/Just exactly where it is now. So in reality you will see no change, it's just a
matter of who owns the property.
Pfab/Well if, your saying that the closest display to the highway is behind that (can't
hear) or green grass on the far side of the highway.
Franklin/Right now, this is where the trees are planted right now, this is where the paving
is of the frontage road, that is where you see cars parked right now for display.
Pfab/Okay.
Lehman/And they're going to stay there.
Franklin/And they're going to stay there. This will be more landscaped than it is right
now and Carousel would own this instead of the city.
Pfab/But now they're not suppose to be parking cars (can't hear).
Franklin/This is very true, that's why I said it's a reality right or wrong and we've gone
back and forth and around and around with them for a long time.
Lehman/Well this is kind of taking care of, originally the frontage road was intended to
go somewhere, we determined some time ago it wasn't going anywhere.
Franklin/Yes, and I think if it was a functioning frontage road we wouldn't have had that
particular problem.
Lehman/Right, right. So this allows it to function for a legal purpose and they will
acquire eventually ownership of the road and put the trees and shrubs up and move
their driveway and.
Franklin/Right now it functions like a private driveway and it would become a private
driveway.
Lehman/Right.
Kanner/What?
Vanderhoef/Would we have utility easements in there?
Dilkes/There will be a blank.
Franklin/A blanket easement.
Dilkes/A blanket utility easement over the vacated right of way.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 21
Kanner/How come we don't want a frontage road there? It seems that.
Lehman/It doesn't go anywhere.
Kanner/No how come we don't want to extend it?
Lehman/Where would it go?
Franklin/Because it was too close.
Kanner/There's going to be development here, Mormon Trek would seem to be a natural
to.
Franklin/That location of a frontage road was too close and after our experience on
Highway 1 near Keokuk Street with the bank when we closed that frontage road in
front of Kmart, what happens is because that entry is so close to Ruppert Road,
particularly as Ruppert starts to have more traffic with development to the south
because of it's proximity to the Highway 1 right of way then you have people
backing up and blocking the frontage road or they are, there's problems with the
intersection with Highway 1.
Kanner/When ! walk, it seems we would want to continue or get something there so
people, pedestrians can walk, there's really nothing up there, when ! have to walk
down from Miller over to the west it's pretty tough, are we planning to put in any
kind of trail or anything?
Franklin/Well ! think what you want to look at then is sidewalk projects like we're doing
on Highway 6.
Kanner/Is that in the works in being proposed?
Franklin/No, not yet.
Champion/(can't hear).
Kanner/What?
Champion/I'm sure Carousel Motors won't mind if you walk on their road.
Franklin/Well there's quite a bit of highway right of way there that would, well at that
point it wouldn't be the easiest thing to put in a sidewalk because of the change of
grade, it drops down from the highway down to Carousel. But on the other side
of the road ! think there's probably enough space for an 8 foot sidewalk. But it's
also a rural cross section right now as it Highway 6 so as things change over time,
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 22
you know we've talked about Highway 6 going to an urban cross section, that is
curb and gutter and sidewalks and that's happening now. Okay.
Pfab/And so there's no way that we're going to consider sidewalks?
Franklin/That is not in the discussion right now.
Pfab/Should it be?
Franklin/During your capital improvement program discussion maybe in January would be
a good time to bring it up.
Pfab/Or should that be part of the mix here?
Franklin/I would not advise it.
Pfab/Why wouldn't you advise it?
Franklin/Because at this point we have no plan for an overall sidewalk system there, this
particular property drops from the highway down to Carousel Motors, ! don't
know that the south side of the highway would be the appropriate place to put a
sidewalk. You would probably have to put in a retaining wall to have a sidewalk
on the south side of the highway on this particular property so ! just think there's a
lot more thought that would need to be put into it before we talked about putting a
sidewalk along this highway.
Pfab/Okay well we have the right of way now but if then we're going to.
Franklin/The sidewalk would not go in this frontage road right of way, it would go in the
overall Highway 1 right of way which we are not vacating any part of. So any
place that the sidewalk would be is not on Carousel property or pertinent to
Carousel property.
Pfab/ Okay my question is which I started with is how far from the edge of the highway
where it will be legal for them to park cars?
Franklin/Right where the frontage road is now.
Pfab/How far?
Franklin/! don't know the measure, ! mean, ! can take a wild guess but it won't be of
much value. ! would say it's 60 feet.
O'Donnell/! thought it was 63.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 23
Lehman/I thought it was 68.
Franklin/Oh, your probably right.
Pfab/Oh okay I was thinking it was a lot closer and I was thinking if your looking at this
as an entrance way to the city cars bumped up against so you've got to be careful.
Lehman/But that's why we're asking for the screening, and the shrubs and the trees and
whatever so it does give it a better.
Pfab/Well I was thinking it would be one trunk and a car and a tree trunk and another car.
Lehman/I don't think so.
Pfab/That was my concern.
Lehman/I think the next item I need to leave for.
Franklin/Yes you do.
B. CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM DENSITY
SINGLE-FAMILY, RS-8 AND LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY, RM-12 TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, OPDH-20 TO ALLOW 43 ELDER
CONGREGATE HOUSING UNITS ON 2.12 ACRES OF PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTH OF BENTON STREET AND EAST OF GEORGE
STREET. (REZ02-00009)
Franklin/Okay this is a request by Oaknoll to change the zoning of this property from RS-
8 and RM-12 to OPDH-20 to, and this property is located just east of George
Street and along what used to be Benton Court. What would this permit is a
development which would consist of 43 elder congregate housing units. What is
being planned by Oaknoll immediately is work in this area, this is something that
would probably not happen for a number of years but it was important to look at it
in connection with this project to enable us to see the entire thing and how it was
going to develop over time. One of the issues that we looked at, well there were
two issues that we looked at, one was the truck traffic, the truck deliveries to
Oaknoll which had been coming from Oakcrest and there was a proposal to change
it to come down George Street and this was of some concern given that right now
all of that truck traffic is primarily concentrated on Oakcrest. As it went through
Planning & Zoning Commission Oaknoll did keep they could keep the truck traffic
on Oakcrest so there will be no change there. The other issue had to do with the
mass of the building, as it transitioned to the single family area to the west side of
George Street, just for your information Oaknoll is also acquiring properties on the
west side of George Street, they have not acquired all of them yet. The plan is to
use those existing houses for a period of time and I wouldn't say that that will
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 24
never change, obviously things do change but for their long term plans that we
know of right now this is the configuration of the building that they're proposing.
Kanner/Of that, can you go back to, point out the rezoning.
Franklin/Okay the rezoning is in this area right here.
Kanner/And ! assume that eventually, we don't know but there's a guess that across the
street down the road they might ask for rezoning there too?
Franklin/Well in our discussion to date it has been that they would keep that side of
George Street with those houses because they have a call for people who want to
still live in a house, in fact that's what they're doing with some of the houses on
Benton Court right now. You know that's all we can go on at this point, ! can't
say one way or another but there's more logic to the boundary here at George
Street in terms of how the whole development is worked out, it just about
completes that entire, well it's a block and then some. This is existing RM-44
zoning for Oaknoll and so what it does is it brings a higher density but this is RM-
20, or OPDH-20 that they are requesting brings a line down here that's the higher
density zoning.
Vanderhoef/So the front door is going to be moved to Benton Street.
Franklin/Right, into this entry area here, which is currently Benton Court. I'm sure the
representatives of Oaknoll will have some elevations for you tomorrow night.
Vanderhoef/There were some in the packet.
Kanner/One of the issues brought up by staff somewhat of a conflict of purposes in terms
of our comprehensive plan to promote elderly housing versus preserving
neighborhoods. And also did you get into the idea of we now want to scatter
assisted living and this, this is more concentrated assisted living arrangements.
Franklin/! don't know what your referring to in scattering assisting living.
Kanner/Well for, this applied perhaps mostly to CDBG but ! think the philosophy could
apply in general, we want to have housing that gives some assistance to people to
be scattered and that's one of the issues that's being brought up at Longfellow
(can't hear).
Franklin/Well that issue relates to assisted housing in terms of financial assistance that
housing for low to moderate individuals, or housing in which there is financial
assistance that that be scattered site housing, we've talked about that, ! don't recall
that we've ever had a discussion of assisted living for the elderly which is when
they have services provided to them. It's not any kind of financial assistance.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 25
Champion/It would be impractical to scatter it because of the staffing that you need to run
a independent living.
Franklin/Right, right.
Kanner/Go ahead Irvin I've got another.
Pfab/My biggest problem is call, what is (can't hear)? What are the (can't hear)? What is
(can't hear) housing go on there? (can't hear) When this gets developed now all
these people (can't hear), it's assisted living maybe for every unit there there's
maybe one, two, three people involved, I just, (can't hear). How is the city
looking at handling that grading recent (can't hear).
Franklin/Well just looking at this project we're talking about 43 units, I don't know that I
would describe that as a great increase.
Pfab/But (can't hear) this is just the piling on, in other words you walk across the street
(can't hear) all over the place.
Franklin/And Benton Street is an arterial street and we have had discussions about
Benton Street before there are capacity issues there. And the Council decided not
to address those capacity issues on Benton Street at the point in time you had the
discussion. The traffic issues on Benton Street will increase as time goes on
whether development here close in or it happens on Mormon Trek Boulevard or
Rohret Road. It's a challenge.
Pfab/Sure it's a challenge but I mean at least somebody (can't hear). How are you
going? (can't hear).
Franklin/We're going to do it by trying to encourage multi modes of transportation, the
use of transit, providing sidewalks so people can have bicycles, they can be
pedestrians if they wish to be. By the way, I must tell you, I shared this with
Steven that Iowa City is third in the nation in metropolitan statistical areas in terms
of the percentage of people who walk to work. So we have a very pedestrian.
Pfab/(can't hear).
Franklin/We have a pedestrian friendly community.
Kanner/Well let me follow up.
Pfab/Is there the sidewalks, is there room there to expand the sidewalks?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 26
Franklin/Not at this point no, and sometime we're going to have to address that Benton
Street issue again or somebody in the future is going to have to.
Pfab/(Can't hear) it's awful close.
Kanner/Let me just follow real quickly on what Irvin was saying, someone brought to my
attention, what if Oaknoll wants to sell part or all of their property sometime down
the road and then we're basing this on seniors which are not going to have as
much traffic, it was mentioned in the staff notes, they're not going to drive as
much but that becomes regular rental apartments for any age group. The person
recommended perhaps who want to have zoning will allow senior apartments but
not have to rezone it to 44.
Franklin/It's OPDH-20.
Kanner/What?
Franklin/It's OPDH-20 not 44 but that's okay. This proposal is for OPDH-20.
Kanner/20 okay.
Pfab/It's 43 units ! think.
Franklin/Yea 43 units.
Champion/! mean you can't predict the future, that's a valid question Steven ! don't think
you can predict the future and ! don't think there's going to be a scarcity of the
elderly so because I'm getting there.
Kanner/Your going to the peninsula, there's only places you can move.
Champion/I know but it's not going to be done in time for me to move there. It's taking
a lot longer than ! thought.
O'Donnell/That was really good Connie.
Champion/So now I've got to think about Oaknoll but I think it's a valid point but I mean
with every development we do we can't keep them from selling the property and
using it whatever is in the (can't hear).
Franklin/Yea, that's certainly within the realm of possibility but Oaknoll, I don't know it's
such a complex with the combination of the independent apartments, the nursing
rooms, the actual nursing, almost hospital, ! mean it's not a hospital but nursing
facility that it would be a difficult property, ! suppose it's possible but ! think it
would be difficult to just turn it over.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 27
O'Donnell/I think it's highly unlikely.
Franklin/And it also, the structure of Oaknoll, Oaknoll of all of them because of the fact
that the people buy into it, I don't know I just think it would be hard but.
Kanner/Is there talk then in the, as we redo the code book to be more flexible with the
lower density zoning to have these type of projects allowed?
Franklin/Yes, yes. But I mean the same issue is there whether it's in the lower density
except what it does is then it keeps the cap on.
Kanner/If you define it as elderly only in there then you wouldn't be able to sell it and use
it for something else.
Franklin/Or if it sold to something else it would be at a lower density.
Kanner/So we'll maybe hear about that in the future.
Franklin/In the development code review, yes. And what is elderly? Is it 55?
Kanner/Well it's the year around the corner or something, I thought it was 20 years (can't
hear).
Champion/I think it's close to 62 1 think.
Franklin/Okay are we done with that one?
O'Donnell/Let's move on.
Franklin/Ernie. This is not suppose to be here, don't look at that, I don't know how that
other, oh here's the elevations.
Champion/Wow.
Franklin/Just close your eyes Ernie.
Lehman/I'm not looking.
Franklin/The entry.
Vanderhoef/He's seen these pictures before.
Franklin/Okay.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 28
C. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, RS-8, TO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY-MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE
FAMILY, OHP-RS-8, DESIGNATING 3 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 747 WEST BENTON STREET A HISTORIC LANDMARK. (REZ02-
0000S)
Franklin/Okay the next item and ignore the man behind the screen, ignore the screen.
Public hearing on an ordinance changing a zoning designation from RS-8 to OHP-
RS-8, this is for the landmark designation for the Buss property, I think that's
pretty straight forward.
Kanner/Well the one question is about that easement road. Is that, that's a myth that
easement road.
Franklin/We have found nothing to substantiate it.
Kanner/Okay.
Franklin/I can't say that it isn't but there's no recorded easement and we found nothing
that substantiates that ascertain. And I think you received a copy of a memo that
JeffDavidson wrote to the Planning & Zoning Commission it was in the materials
that such a alignment for a road would not be acceptable given where it comes out
on Benton Street which is right on the top of the hill, you wouldn't want to do it
even if there was an easement. Okay.
D. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL iNDUSTRIAL, I-1, TO INTENSIVE
COMMERCIAL, CI-1,. FOR 1.14-ACRES LOCATED WEST OF RIVERSIDE
DRIVE SOUTH OF COMMERCIAL DRIVE. (REZ02-00007)
Franklin/Okay the next item then is a public hearing on changing the zoning designation
from I-1 to CI-1 for 1.14 acres located west of Riverside Drive south of
Commercial Drive. This is on the Gringer property just to give you a landmark.
In the south central district plan what is shown for this area is commercial intensive
zoning, currently it's zoned I-1, there a number of properties in this area that are
zoned I-1 but area relatively small properties in terms of the likelihood of them
redeveloping for industrial uses. This is Commercial Drive here, there's a number
of commercial and intensive uses here, Gringer Feeds is here, you come down, this
is Mesquakie Park at this location, the Thomas & Betts building just to give you
some orientation. The staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission have
recommended approval of this rezoning by 7-0 for the Commission. Any questions
on?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 29
Vanderhoef/Do we have objections on this property? There was something in there about
(can't hear).
Franklin/We have an objection from Mr. Baculis who lives across from this property, the
statement that he made in his letter that he owns 20 percent of the property, I think
that was, that was a misunderstanding of what 20 percent entails. You need to
represent 20 percent of the property within 200 feet surrounding the affected
property. So it needs to be 20 percent including the railroad, the highway, the rest
of Gringer Feeds, not just.
Vanderhoef/So it wouldn't include all of this property it would only falls in the 200.
Kanner/So he's not at 20 percent.
Franklin/No, no, so his protest does not trigger the extraordinary majority vote.
Vanderhoef/And that's the only negative we've had.
Franklin/Yes that I'm aware of.
Vanderhoef/What's the zoning for Baculis?
Franklin/I- 1.
Vanderhoef/It is I-1.
Franklin/Yea.
Vanderhoef/ Okay.
Franklin/Yea.
Vanderhoef/How did that happen get houses in I-1 ?
Franklin/I think it goes all the way back to when we had a different kind of zoning in
which you could have a single family house in any zone.
Vanderhoef/Okay.
Franklin/And you know I haven't traced the zoning of this property all the way back but I
think that's probably what happened.
Vanderhoef/It's grandfathered in.
Franklin/Yea.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 30
Kanner/Could you explain a little bit the conditional agreement at such time as a change
occurs or prior to the issue instead of a building permit.
Franklin/One of the concerns of Mr. Baculis and we shared that concern was the paving
of the property.
Kanner/The what of the property?
Franklin/The paving of the, the parking lot because right now it is not paved and so one
of the requirements then in the conditional zoning agreement is that that area be
paved. That would be something that would be required under our building code
anyway and then likewise coming into compliance with the tree regulations along
Riverside Drive and providing some screening to the north of the property between
let's see if I've got another, no, just along here that some screening be provided.
Kanner/How extensive does the change of use have to be before it kicks in, what does it
(can't hear)?
Franklin/Doesn't, change of use, well typically, the conditional zoning agreement almost
is not necessary but it provides an understanding. When a use changes it has to
come into compliance with our current codes, our current codes require that
parking areas be paved, requires that compliance's with the tree regulations.
Kanner/And what does that?
Franklin/What constitute of change of use?
Kanner/! mean can you do a little retail and not have a change?
Franklin/Any change.
Kanner/Any minute kind of change in business use.
Franklin/When you change the use, now that's like changing from a warehouse to auto
repair. Now it's not when you change the business if it goes from Joe's Auto
Repair to Dick's Auto Repair then.
Kanner/! understand that.
Champion/But you can still have an in home business like you can in our neighborhoods
already, there are certain businesses you can, that alter the designation.
Kanner/! was just wondering how minute the change had to be before it kicks in.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 31
Dilkes/There are classifications of use in the building code which I don't have off the top
of my, I don't have them with me but storage, warehouse, retail those kind of
things come to mind.
Franklin/Okay.
E. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT HOUSING (OPDH-12) PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR
SILVERCREST TO ALLOW FOUR 4-UNIT TOWNHOUSE STYLE
BUILDINGS AND FOUR 24-UNIT INDEPENDENT LIVING BUILDINGS
FOR ELDERLY RESIDENTS ON 12.18 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF SCOTT
BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF AMERICAN LEGION ROAD. (REZ02-
oooo2).
Franklin/The next item is Silvercrest, and this is, I lost myself here, an ordinance
amending the OPDH-12 for Silvercrest to allow four 4-unit townhouse style
buildings and four 24-unit independent living buildings for elderly residents.
Originally we had 118 individual, or independent living units on this site and the
change is to 96 independent living units and 16 townhouses for a total of 112 units
so there's a decrease in the number of units and a change in the configuration of it.
There had been one large building in this part now they have broken it down into
four different buildings of 24 units a piece and have also added to this these units,
the townhouse style buildings on the south end of the property. One point of
controversy in Planning & Zoning which you probably saw in the minutes had to
do with water draining onto the neighbors property, onto Mr. Prybil's property
and he was concerned about this storm water detention basin and whether it was
going to have to be moved or enlarged in order to provide for this project. They
were able to solve that storm water problem to Mr. Prybil's satisfaction or at least
such that it would not move it closer to his property or enlarge it such that he
would experience any additional water.
Vanderhoef/What happens to outlot A? There's been some changes in there and it
doesn't appear now that they're going to put anything on it but is that still a
developable piece for later?
Franklin/Outlot A.
Lehman/Where's Outlot A?
Vanderhoef/Down on the lower right hand corner.
Franklin/Oh yea, no.
Kanner/Is that the Town Square?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 32
Franklin/No that's the next project.
Lehman/That's the storm water detention.
Kanner/The next one.
Franklin/Yea.
Vanderhoef/No it's next to the storm water basin there but there had been something in
there about.
Franklin/I believe Dee that Outlot A is all of that property including the storm water basin
which is why it's in an Outlot.
Vanderhoef/Okay.
Franklin/See they had to divide this up because there's different entities or yea different
entities that run the different parts of it or own different parts of it, such as there's
the Alzheimer's unit here that is owned by one entity. The University of Iowa
Hospitals has the medical building here, and I can check this before tomorrow but
I believe that Outlot A is this whole thing here, now what I want to make sure is
that we've got it connected legally. So nobody (can't hear).
Vanderhoef/It says that Outlot A is 2.76 acres.
Franklin/Right, that looks like more, let me check on that okay.
Vanderhoef/Yes.
Franklin/Any other questions?
Kanner/Could you explain the waivers of certain requirements here, the reduction in rear
yards, the 35 lot frontage required?
Franklin/Yes, those, I mean and whenever you do an OPDH plan practically always
there' s some kind of a waiver of some dimensional requirement because that' s
what the planned development is all about. It allows you to look at a development
in total, and then if that something that you want to have occur there's certain
things that need to be waived in terms of the zoning requirements to allow to
happen. And in this case, as it was being subdivided for purposes of ownership
there would be pieces that would remain did not have for instance the 35 feet of
frontage of a public street. But they were included in this overall plan so that's
one waiver. Additionally the rear yards do not meet exactly the specifications of
the zoning ordinance for instance a 20 foot rear yard and so then we look at a
waiver.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 33
Kanner/Well what do we get in return?
Franklin/And that's what, well what you get is this clustered development, and you get
this whole development, now if you don't think that the development in itself is
worthy having a waiver, I mean then it means then you can't do the development
as it's been presented to you, but that's the reason people do a PDH is to get some
variations in those requirements such that they can do the particular plan.
Vanderhoef/Where's the parking for the three buildings? Is it all underneath?
Franklin/Yes.
Vanderhoef/And then the units down in the southwest corner.
Franklin/They have garages.
Vanderhoef/They have garages.
Kanner/But they don't want to sell this off for single family home lots?
Franklin/Oh, no, no, no, no.
Kanner/So if they were, if we say no period on those two things, would they just move it
back a little bit?
Franklin/No.
Kanner/Well why couldn't they move it back?
Franklin/Well I'd have to look at it exactly, this building here, this is not a very good
illustration, I can't even see it myself where the lines are.
Lehman/This is also sensitive areas.
Pfab/(can't hear).
Franklin/Okay this is a property line here, or it goes back to here, sorry, and it includes
this building, this building has no frontage on a public street so for this building to
have frontage on a public street you would have to either not have that lot there
and not be able to sell that building separately or you would have to move that
building so it had frontage up on American Legion Road. So what it enables them
to do is to the configuration that is before you and it enables them to subdivide
these lots so that different entities can build them. And I guess if you don't want to
enable that you don't vote for it.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 34
Kanner/But what, so what is the benefit from a planning perspective, from a city, from
our city planning perspective to allow them to do that?
Franklin/The benefit with any planned development in allowing those waivers is you get
that clustering of the development. In this case you have within this entire project,
and I think from what we have seen built so far it is a very positive benefit to Iowa
City. That we have a development in which we have independent living in a
couple of places, we have assisted living, we have the Alzheimer's unit, we have
the medical facility right there and it provides a service to our aging community.
Kanner/And that's Connie's third home.
Franklin/Yea, it's another option for Connie in her old age.
Champion/(can't hear).
O'Donnell/After this meeting.
Champion/After this meeting go right to Alzheimer' s.
Lehman/Okay.
Franklin/Okay there's the lots more easily defined, those are just elevations.
Kanner/But it does show that A there, the first one.
Franklin/Oh, yes it does show that as all Outlot A.
Vanderhoef/Okay I can see the black lines around that whole section, that's good.
Franklin/Okay.
F. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, RS-8, TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING
OVERLAY, OPDH-8, FOR WINDSOR RIDGE, PART 16, A 31.1-ACRE, 10-
LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED NORTH OF CAMDEN ROAD AND SOUTH
OF LOWER WEST BRANCH ROAD. (REZ02-00006)
Franklin/Okay the next item is a public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning
designation from RS-8 to OPDH-8, this was zoned RS-8 when it was annex some
time ago. What this rezoning allows 182 dwellings and a mix of duplexes,
townhouse and apartment units. This is a project that we've spent quite a bit of
time with the developer working through the design of the buildings, as well as the
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 35
design of the Town Square. This starts to play out one of the ideas that is in the
Northeast District Plan and that is to have a Town Square developed in the midst
of Lower West Branch Road. The idea is that that Outlot A would be replicated
through and on the other side of Lower West Branch Road that so that in some
point in time when this area is fully developed as you go down Lower West
Branch Road which is a collector you would be not stopped, but slowed as you
got to that Town Square and you go around that Town Square. The Town Square
is defined visually by 3 12-plexes here and then apartments along this side also.
The rest of the project is a combination of different kinds of duplexes, and ranch
style single level housing which is something that is lacking in the market right
now. So there's, a couple of issues with this that the Council needs to be aware of
and one is the impetus that it will bring for the construction of Lower West Branch
Road. Last year we moved Lower West Branch Road to fiscal year 05-06,
whatever is at the end of our capital, 06 is the end of our capital improvements
program. Depending upon how quickly this goes and of course that's something
we really never know, that demand for Lower West Branch Road will increase and
I'm sure you'll be hearing from the developer that they are anxious to have that
become a capital project. This is one of those circumstances in which the
development of property along Lower West Branch Road will contribute to the
cost of the road and we have a conditional zoning agreement that will be before
you tomorrow. The developer's expected to sign it tomorrow that obligates him
to financial commitment to Lower West Branch Road.
Pfab/In simple terms, what does (can't hear)?
Franklin/In simple terms, it is, well I don't know ifI can put it in simple terms. It's a pro
rata share, and it's based upon the number of acres of development, and it's done
with an equation that takes into consideration that a portion of the traffic on
Lower West Branch Road will be community wide traffic and then that you split
the cost between the development to the north of the road and the development to
the south of the road. One thing that I'll point out because I've had a number of
calls about it, is that if someone is not developing their property, that is if they own
a house out there on Lower West Branch Road, they will not be assessed for this
road project, what this is about is having the cost of that road shared by
development.
Pfab/But if that house is ever sold and developed from there.
Franklin/Then they will, if it's sold and if the person who buys it wishes to develop the
property further than that one house, then they also will also share in the cost of
the road.
Pfab/So that's waiting there as a potential lien against it.
Franklin/A potential opportunity for them to contribute to the road.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 36
Pfab/Oh isn't that nice, I.
Kanner/Karin, the drawings we got of the sketches I guess. Are those, what are being
planted? It seems that there was talk of garages. We didn't want garages (can't
hear).
Franklin/We always talk about garages.
Kanner/What?
Franklin/We always talk about garages.
Kanner/It's good, and it seems they do dominate here which is something that we were,
without talking about not having them there.
(All talking)
Franklin/Well I think, okay these are the 12-plexes and townhouses that define the square
and there are no garages there. The duplexes, it's very difficult to do duplexes
without garages, having some presence, and it's a matter of whether the garage
dominates or not, and what he did, this one I can't say that that's a good example,
and what we got to in doing a lot of work with the developer and trying to put
more features on the back and there's also some landscaping which is not apparent
in this drawing. The features that were put on the back to take away the visual
dominance of the garage are the, the kind of patios here with the doors, this door,
the entry door on the back, putting some treatment on the posts, the pillars that
actually hold up the deck.
Kanner/That sketch, we have sketches at the end, are those examples of what we don't
want? It seems like.
Franklin/No.
Kanner/The garages dominate totally.
Franklin/Well part of that I think is a difficulty in seeing the plane.
Champion/It's flat you mean.
Franklin/Yes.
Kanner/(can't hear).
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 37
Franklin/What's happened is they've been flattened out, when you look at it just flat and I
don't have one for the screen, but when you look at it just in a drawing it is not
always apparent what sticks out, and what we've dealt.
(END OF 02-60, SIDE ONE)
Franklin/Those garages on the same plane as the rest of the building, to pull them back
some, to bring porches up, it has been a process of working with them, and coming
to some compromises and moving toward a goal of trying to get less garage
dominance, and I think that the developer in this case has done a Yeoman's job in
trying to move in that direction.
Champion/It looks great.
Pfab/I think if you go back to that, I was observing that, trying to figure out.
Franklin/Which?
Pfab/No, no, on the previous one.
Franklin/That one.
Pfab/Yea, now when you look at the, this looks like a flat surface, it obviously isn't, is the
depth extend out past the garage door a few feet?
Franklin/Yea.
Pfab/And then there's a post in it?
Franklin/Yea.
Pfab/Is that a wall or just a single post?
Franklin/It's a post, let me show you where this particular one is because that's important
too, this does not face a street.
Pfab/Right.
Franklin/They're right there, and at some point, what's likely to happen, this piece right
here is in the county right now, and what is likely to happen is that as this develops
at some time in the future whenever the property owner wants to, I mean it's not
we're imposing anything here, but at some time in the future when this develops
that it will develop with some kind of a loop road that will come around and give
access to the property so these units would be facing a court yard or a loop road,
something that will make them fit in better than they do right now.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 38
Pfab/You bring up a point here, now the open wide space directly to the left of the units
we're talking about.
Franklin/The Town Square.
Pfab/The Town Square, now that's a half (can't hear).
Franklin/Right, that will go up like that.
Pfab/And what is the width on the bottom side, is that a block to block?
Franklin/It's a block, about a block.
Pfab/That seems like an awful tight Town Square for if you've got traffic (can't hear). It
just seems like it just kind of.
Franklin/I think Town Squares are usually about a block, I think, I'm thinking of
Washington.
Pfab/(can't hear) That doesn't say it's right wrong, or right, it just.
Franklin/Okay, anything else on that one?
Kanner/And we're giving them the variations on this, the between the apartment buildings
and?
Franklin/Yes, 35 feet of frontage, reduction of rear yards, and these are all as shown on
the plan, it's not just for every single lot, that needs to be clear.
Vanderhoef/And where did we finally end up with the Parks & Recreation on the?
Franklin/Okay that is going to be private open space.
Vanderhoef/Okay. And they're going to pay fees in lieu of.
Franklin/Yes, what Dee's talking about is this Outlot C which Planning & Zoning wanted
to get more open space in the center here, Parks & Rec. was reluctant to take on
another small space because of maintenance costs, and so the developer agreed to
make that private open space and they agreed to pay a fee in lieu of more
dedication, because the Town Square is part of their dedication of open space.
Pfab/Did I read this correctly that the Parks and Recreation Commission said that they
would like to take the space and Terry said no he preferred not to. Did I read that
correctly?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 39
Franklin/I don't, I don't think so, usually Terry does whatever his Commission tells him
to.
Kanner/Well Terry, there was a note from Terry.
Vanderhoef/Later.
Lehman/Is that a different project though?
Kanner/I thought it was this project.
Vanderhoef/In the minutes, I think your right Steven that originally they thought they
wanted the land but I don't.
Franklin/This particular piece though.
Vanderhoef/I'm not sure that they saw that it was split land, you know.
Kanner/ Okay.
Franklin/I don't know.
Kanner/Maybe by tomorrow night clarify that if they did vote, if the Commission wanted
it and.
Vanderhoef/And then Terry came back.
Kanner/Or I don't know which order it was, Terry said he didn't want it.
Franklin/And then the Commission agreed or?
Kanner/Well no I thought that the Commission said we should take the land.
Franklin/Okay I'll look into it and see what the scope was.
Champion/It looks pretty small.
Vanderhoef/It is but if they were thinking Town Square and that piece as all one area,
that might have looked different to them.
Franklin/Okay anything else on this one?
Kanner/Where's the pedestrian path going to be, isn't there a pedestrian path where the
road is closed?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 40
Franklin/Yea. It comes from Stonebridge Estates and across here and then hooks up
with the Lindemann Farm subdivision and of course here there's also connections
over to Scott Park Drive.
Kanner/Who maintains those?
Franklin/They are like sidewalks by your house, you have a responsibility to that abutting
property owners.
Kanner/Because we heard of some problems on the one on First Avenue, coming out
onto First Avenue from the west.
Franklin/First Avenue from the west.
Vanderhoef/Between Rita Lyn and First Avenue.
Franklin/Yea, it's not a perfect system but that's how we do it, otherwise the cost it
would take for us to take on responsibility of maintaining all those sidewalks
would be pretty phenomenal.
Kanner/But maybe we need to put those, make sure it's an extra notice in the deed, or
when the houses are sold by the developer because ! don't think a lot of people
realize they're responsible, they don't see that as their sidewalk per se.
Dilkes/Well with respect to the one on First Avenue we've received a letter from Mr.
Downer on behalf of Mr. Thomas and we're in the process of communicating with
him about that but as to how all that will work out and whether a notice is given
should be we'll have to take a look at that, but I'm certainly not in the position to.
Franklin/I'm trying to think of an effective notice.
Kanner/Well maybe in the picture maybe though we need to make sure the owners of the
future houses that have these cut thru's which are good ideas special note on there
that says your responsible for this.
Dilkes/Well I guess what I'm saying with respect to the First Avenue situation is I'm not
in a position at this point anyway to concede that there wasn't significant notice in
the documentation that would have appeared in the abstract of record.
Kanner/So maybe it's in there and it might.
Dilkes/We're in the process of looking at those documents.
Kanner/And you think it might be in these too, these future ones.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 41
Dilkes/I think it very well may be, sufficient notice already appears of record, but again I
haven't look at that in depth.
Pfab/Is there a difference between sidewalks and (can't hear)?
Franklin/No.
Pfab/What would this?
Franklin/There's no significant difference.
Pfab/(can't hear).
Franklin/Well they'll be paved if that's your question, they won't be like a path in the
woods, they'll be paved sidewalks.
Kanner/But sidewalks typically thinks of fronts being on streets and these are going to be
a little bit different going in between houses.
Franklin/Yea and that's an issue we've had for years. Okay Larry is just giving me a note
that in this case the Homeowner's Association will maintain private, open spaces
and walks and so because they have an association that is part of the
responsibilities of the association.
Lehman/Okay.
Pfab/Great idea.
G. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, RS-5, TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY, OPDH-5, TO ALLOW
23 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 13 TOWNHOUSE STYLE UNITS IN
VILLAGE GREEN, PART XXII, A 9.31-ACRE 24-LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION LOCATED WEST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD AND NORTH
OF WELLINGTON DRIVE. (REZ02-00008)
Franklin/Okay next item is a public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning
designation from RS-5 to OPDH-5 to allow 23 single family lots and 13
Townhouse style units in Village Green Part XXII.
Vanderhoef/Before you go any further, there's some discrepancy in the verbiage on this,
on the agenda it says Part 23, but some place in the verbiage in the package it says
part 12.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 42
Lehman/It say 22 in the packet.
Vanderhoef/Or 22, 22, and then some place it's listed 12.
Lehman/Well 22 apparently is correct, it also appears on a plat.
Vanderhoef/Well talk about 20.
Lehman/Well up on the screen it says 22 and that's the plat, I assume.
Champion/Yea, part 22.
Vanderhoef/ Yea but it might be in the agreement, let me see if I can find that for you.
Franklin/Well we can check that, there's an error somewhere.
Lehman/A scrivner's error, we'll deal with that later.
Franklin/A scrivner guy, okay. Okay this is at the corner of Village Green or Camden
Road, Wellington, Wellington and Scott Boulevard in the northwest corner.
Single family lots, 23 single family lots, and then one lot in which there will be
townhouses very similar to what's been built in the Wellington Condo's without a
lake.
Lehman/Okay.
O'Donnell/Good.
Franklin/I guess I'm done, I'm not totally done sorry.
H. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, RNC-20, TO SENSITIVE AREAS
OVERLAY-NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, SAO-RNC-20, FOR A
0.41-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 341 N. RIVERSIDE DRIVE. (REZ02-
00004) (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Franklin/Okay the next item then is first consideration of the Sensitive Areas Overlay, .41
acres of 341 N. Riverside Drive, a house too, I think we've said most everything
that can be said, first consideration.
Kanner/Karin, well actually last time I came to you about, at the meeting came with a
nearby resident who had some concerns about a retaining wall and what that
would look like and you said you might like into if we can get a written agreement.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 43
Franklin/Well it's on the plans and there's a detail in the plans that shows that the retaining
walls are the keystone structure and so they have to build what's on those plans
and so ! don't think we need a legal agreement that requires that.
Kanner/And Keystone, explain what it is and what if it doesn't work, like the concern is
what happened above Mayflower.
Champion/But there was no retaining wall there.
Kanner/But they tried different things.
Lehman/But to start with (can't hear).
Franklin/Well first of all this retaining wall is at the top of the hill, it's not the Cliffs
behind the Mayflower where it was the entire hillside that was coming down and
they were trying to put the retaining wall at the bottom and go up, that's why they
had to use the gabionce with the wrip wrap. This is at the top of the hill, they're
creating a retaining wall, and this is a keystone structure which is something that is
used on retaining walls all over town. ! don't know why it wouldn't work
particularly here, ! mean ! just can't speculate on that.
Kanner/And so your saying that, well ! guess the concern was.
Franklin/It's a different dynamic than the Mayflower issue is what I'm trying to say.
Kanner/Well aside from the Mayflower issue the concern is that it's in writing and this is
what they're going to go with, what happens if they don't, if they change the
plans?
Franklin/Well they have to build with the building permit or they don't.
Kanner/So they would have to come back to.
Franklin/It would have to be changed.
Kanner/Would it have to come back to Council?
Franklin/No, no, it wouldn't, the building permit would not, the final inspection would
not be passed if they don't build what's in the building permit.
Kanner/And just walking through what would happen, ! mean this is a concern that the
people in the neighborhood are having that they will change it after they put
something in the.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 44
Franklin/I can't walk you through enforcement, I mean I hate to say this but it's not my
area, and so I don't have the expertise to tell you what happens exactly with the
building permit, but there's plans that are brought in, the building inspectors look
at them, they approve the plans, that's what has to be built is what is in the plans
and they go through a series of inspections foundation, plumbing, electrical and
then a final inspection. And I would presume that if the retaining wall is not there
as shown in the plan that they will have to put it in before they can get an
occupancy permit.
Dilkes/There are a variety of mechanisms that can be used when the inspection showed
things that are not pursuant to the plans, anything from a stop work order to an
infraction to not issuing the occupancy permit.
Franklin/Okay.
I. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SENSITIVE AREAS
ORDINANCE TO REGULATE ISOLATED WETLANDS. (FIRST
CONSIDERATION)
Franklin/Item I is to consider an ordinance amending wetlands, you've been through that
and so the public hearing is closed, it's first consideration.
J. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM
LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-12, TO SENSITIVE
AREAS OVERLAY-LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SAO-
RM-12, FOR LOT 2 OF FIRST AND ROCHESTER SUBDIVISION, PART 1, A
38,041 SQUARE-FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF FIRST AVENUE,
NORTH OF ROCHESTER STREET. (REZ02-000003) (SECOND
CONSIDERATION)
Franklin/Item J is first consideration on the project on First Avenue, apartment building
on First Avenue and I'm done.
Lehman/We've got to break.
BREAK
Agenda Items
Lehman/I'm going to say this is the quickest review we've ever done. Actually, do you
have something Steven?
Champion/Because we have people waiting, could we move it to right before council
time?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 45
Lehman/Well if we don't have anything we don't worry about it. Council appointments
are going to be just as quick because there are no applications, period.
Vanderhoef/Oh can I just ask Eleanor one thing?
ITEM NO. 20. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN ASSESSMENT
SCHEDULE OF UNPAID MOWING, CLEAN-UP OF PROPERTY, SNOW
REMOVAL, SIDEWALK REPAIR, AND STOP BOX REPAIR CHARGES
AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE
JOHNSON COUNTY TREASURER FOR COLLECTION IN THE SAME
MANNER AS PROPERTY TAXES.
Vanderhoef/Item 20, in the resolution you put the hours of operation for Johnson County
offices, and they have done some changing with hours at different times that I just
wondered if it was appropriate to just take out the hours from that resolution.
Pfab/Which item?
Vanderhoef/20.
Champion/On the collection business.
Dilkes/I need to get the resolution in front of me just a minute.
Vanderhoef/Page 243, well you don't have a computer though.
Champion/That's a good point.
Lehman/Leave a note.
Dilkes/How about if we double check those hours, I think the idea was to give people
additional notice as to when they can make that payment.
Vanderhoef/I knew it was for information but you know they could do it at a drop of a
hat which means then we have to redo our thing.
Dilkes/Let me think about it.
Vanderhoef/Okay.
Kanner/A couple things, Steve the PCRB said the video is coming together they put
together and could we either, could I get a copy or if anyone else wants it or
maybe we could watch it together if anyone wants to? How long is it do you
know? Is it about 10-15 minute?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 46
Karr/Yes it's about 12 minutes, about 12 minutes.
Atkins/I was going to say I didn't think it was particularly long because I know that my
spot is about 30 seconds and they have a whole bunch of folks doing those things.
Let me find out.
Kanner/If there's interest maybe we could watch it together before a work session.
Vanderhoef/Marian your going to have one in your office for us to check out.
Karr/We're going to have three copies in my office.
Lehman/To check out.
Vanderhoef/And so we could them out and watch them at home, either way.
Atkins/And keep in mind the PCRB may have some ideas on how they'd like to present
the thing for you also.
Lehman/Okay.
Kanner/Okay. And were going to get reports on police visits to bars not just for
underage drinking but for any other kind of disturbances as part of our report on
voting on renewal and.
Atkins/Didn't I give you that report?
Kanner/What?
Atkins/Didn't I give you that?
Kanner/That was about a year and a half ago and.
Atkins/I'm sorry Steven, let me down easy.
Kanner/We were going to, I know your excited about the Reds and.
Atkins/Yea I know they're still over 500 (can't hear) that's a long story.
Kanner/We were going to wait until after the ordinances passed and we were going to get
some further in-depth reports, there's a scuffle, if there's consistent calls to that
bar for things other than for PAULA' s.
Atkins/Let me get you a better answer the next day or so, I recall it now (can't hear).
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 47
(someone in audience, can't hear)
Atkins/We're going to gang up on him, Steven I remember the conversation and what
your interested in doing and I'll take care of that.
Kanner/Okay.
Atkins/And I apologize if it's been a year and a half.
Kanner/And there was another.
ITEM NO. 21. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A
SECOND REVISED CHAPTER 28E AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY AND THE CITY OF CORALVILLE REGARDING CERTAIN
OBLIGATIONS INVOLVING THE IOWA RIVER POWER DAM
RENOVATION PROJECT.
Vanderhoef/While you look that one up, I have just one other quick one on Item 21, and
we're redoing the 28E agreement for the dam and I'm not aware of what the
changes are and why this has to happen.
Atkins/Do you want to do it Eleanor?
Dilkes/Yea the primary changes, there's been a change in design and I can't address that
specifically but the earlier 28E agreement specifically agreed to a design prepared
by I can't remember who the previous one was and but now it's NNW and it's a
new date and that's corrected. But the primary reason is that contrary to the
earlier agreement Coralville has assumed control essentially of the property
acquisition because of their First Avenue improvements which are taking property
on the other side of Mr. Heisman's property from what we need on this side near
the river and so we're combining those acquisitions and having Coralville take the
lead on those.
Vanderhoef/Okay.
Dilkes/Oh and you have an amended one in your stack of materials.
Vanderhoef/Okay I see that, yes.
Dilkes/We did address, we added, there's a change made to address what happens with
the REAP grant and who's responsibility that is if we lose that grant, essentially if
it's lost due to budgetary constraints at the state due to no fault of either Coralville
or Iowa City Coralville will pay the additional amount lost from the grant. In
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 48
addition they'll pay, if they don't accomplish property acquisition by the end of the
year otherwise it will be our responsibility.
O'Donnell/(can't hear) 50,000.
Atkins/$150,000 1 thought.
Dilkes/The grant is $150 and then Coralville also has a contribution of an additional
$54,000.
O'Donnell/Okay.
ITEM NO. 6. A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND
NEXTEL WIP LEASE CORP. FOR USE OF CAPITAL STREET PARKING
RAMP SPACE FOR AN EQUIPMENT SHELTER AND SPACE ON THE
EXTERIOR OF THE ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE FOR ANTENNA USE.
Kanner/Okay yea this is number 6, the approval of the lease with Nextec.
Atkins/Nextel.
Kanner/Nextel, oh it's an L okay. How much do we get from a car and from a car using
the spaces if we left it as?
Atkins/Well these spaces where this building.
Kanner/Parking spaces.
Atkins/No, where this building is going to be built is I don't know how do you call open
spot as well as where motorcycles are parked and we just simply haven't had much
experience with folks parking motorcycles in there and so we wanted to use the
space.
Vanderhoef/Is the motorcycles the first floor?
Atkins/Yea.
Vanderhoef/Okay.
Kanner/And do we know what type of, last time we were asking what type of
communication?
Atkins/It' s just a cellular telephone company Steven the best that, a cellular service.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 49
Kanner/Don't you think we should wait until we clarify the whole thing? Aren't we
going to have other companies that are coming, and maybe we ought to put this
out to bid or is there another way of dealing with this? Are we getting a good
price for it?
Atkins/We believe we're getting a good price, that's one, secondly they come to us and
ask us, we had no intention of bidding for other telephone companies unless you all
want to do that, I'm not sure how I'd even put it out there for proposal. It's being
a fixed to an already fixed asset and so we really didn't see any change. To be real
candid with you the bottom line it was a chance to have $1,700 a month to go into
the parking fund.
Vanderhoef/And that would include instead of going into a property tax situation the rent
is part of that.
Atkins/Yea.
Vanderhoef/Okay.
Atkins/Irvin had a question before Dee.
Pfab/Okay what is the down side to us and I have two questions. What is the down side
to us and how do we know that this is a, is there a price established in a wider
area? What do other? Apparently is just a, is it a tower?
Atkins/No it's just a fix to the building in the Penthouse portion of the parking lot.
Pfab/But it is a, it acts like a tower.
Atkins/It is, but the parking ramp is a tower in the sense of it's height, yea.
Pfab/And so what do others, what do other people pay, what is (can't hear).
Lehman/Well the Vets hospital is in the packet, they're getting either $1,300 or $1,500 a
month.
Atkins/$1,300 at the Vets.
Dilkes/$1,300.
Atkins/We're doing a little better.
Pfab/And how long ago was that negotiated?
Lehman/I have no idea, but may pay it, it's in the packet.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 50
Atkins/It can't be too old, it's a couple of years.
Kanner/The question is, we're going to the County and saying we want to do a
coordinated thing and perhaps we ought to wait.
Lehman/My concern, our concern, I'm sorry go ahead Eleanor.
Dilkes/! spoke to John Yapp today because Steve raised the issue of the cell tower study
that's being done, or the tower study that's being done by JCCOG and he tells me
that towers and antenna's are very distinct, we're dealing with an antenna that's
being attached to an existing building as opposed to a tower which is the subject of
that study which is a free standing thing that has other issues such as it' s, it can fall
down in the wind, and has safety issues and those kind of things, aesthetic issues.
But those are different than the antenna's that we're talking about with this lease.
Lehman/There are phone antenna's on top of the Iowa State Bank building, on top of the
Sheraton, most, many tall buildings have antenna's on now without having towers.
Pfab/Well does anybody, do we have any idea what the (can't hear)?
Lehman/! have no idea.
Champion/! think $1,700 is a month is.
Pfab/Well sure but if you don't know, and do they?
Atkins/! did not research whether Nextel is going to make any money or lots of money on
this and ! didn't ask that that be done.
Pfab/A lot of times people they can get one step ahead of you because they're doing all
over the country and here they walk it and it looks like a you know, are we getting
a fair shake? The other point is my biggest, my other concern was, my real
concern was the three percent increase you know which the way these towers.
Atkins/This is another tower.
Pfab/But ! mean the uses are growing and growing and growing you know and we're
basically starting out with a new unit is there?
Atkins/That's why it's a five year agreement.
Kanner/Loophole for.
Pfab/But is it?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 51
Atkins/Folks we make judgment calls on these all the time it' s really up to you whether
you.
Pfab/That was my concern that the three percent and the other thing the (can't hear).
Atkins/In simplest terms we looked at it, the five year agreement at $20,000 a year is
$100,000, for really not doing much other than loaning our space.
Champion/And I think 3 percent is a lot more than my (can't hear).
(all talking)
Lehman/Okay is there any other?
Vanderhoef/The, I'm curious, does it go into general fund or does it go into parking?
Atkins/Parking fund.
Lehman/Parking.
Atkins/Parking fund, they provide the asset.
Lehman/Any other agenda items?
Appointments
Readvertise.
Parcel 64-1A
Lehman/Okay the next one is 64-1A, there were no other proposals that were submitted
to the city so I will presume we will pick up where we left of two weeks ago or a
month ago.
Atkins/Month ago.
City Steps Amendment Discussion (ITEM NO. 10. AMENDMENTS TO THE FY02
AND FY03 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN BUDGETS, THAT ARE SUB-PARTS
OF IOWA CITY'S 2001-2006 CONSOLIDATED PLAN (CITY STEPS) AS
AMENDED, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT SAID
AMENDMENTS AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO THE U. S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER AS THE AUTHORIZED CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 52
Lehman/City Steps, Karin.
Wilburn/Is this Item 107
Lehman/I'm sorry.
Wilburn/Is this Item 107
Vanderhoef/Yes.
Atkins/Yes.
Lehman/Yes, I'm sorry, yes it is.
Wilburn/I can't participate in the discussion due to a conflict in interest with CDBG home
funds due to my employment of a participating agency.
Franklin/You have before you a recommendation from the Housing and Community
Development Commission regarding the allocation of $250,000. This $250,000
was allocated to Metro Plains and there's a time schedule of what's kind of
happened with the Metro Plains project in the memorandum that was in your
packet. It was first allocated in May of 2001. For the reasons that have been
outlined in your packet they have not been, they have been unable to proceed with
their project, they came to the Housing and Community Development Commission
to request an extension. The Housing and Community Development Commission
on a vote of 3-3 did not approve that extension and so the next step for the
Commission was to decide how to reallocate those funds and there are essentially
four options that the Commission had to choose from which are enumerated in the
memorandum to you. One was to fund existing projects that did not receive full
funding in the last allocation, projects that had submitted applications but did not
receive any home funding would be considered. Now just remember this is just
home funding, it is not CDBG money. The third option was to consider new
proposals, that's an essence opening up an allocation process again. And fourth
was to put the money into contingency. The decisions of the Housing and
Community and Development Commission were to use that first option, that is to
fund existing, any existing home projects that were not fully funded. There was
one project, Garden Prairie and so that project was funded with the remainder
going into contingency. The Council's decisions can be that you go with the
HCDC recommendation totally, that you reconsider their vote on the extension to
Metro Plains and/or you choose a different option for the reallocation. Option 2 is
not in the game because there were no projects that did not receive, there were no
projects that applied for home funding that did not receive home funding. So
that's where you are.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 53
Champion/Well I don't know how you want to start this Ernie but I, I'm a little bothered
by the, Metro Plains is the one who has to go into the Longfellow.
Lehman/Right.
Champion/I got messed up on the two. To me Longfellow is a neighborhood that is
meets the city's comprehensive plan perfectly, it's a very mixed neighborhood, all
the streets are mixed economic levels with small cottages and big houses and it's a
wonderful, wonderful mixed neighborhood. And so nobody in the Longfellow
neighborhood are against low income housing or high income housing or middle
income housing because that's what's wonderful about the neighborhood. To put
24 low income units into this small parcel of land to me alternately changes the
character of the neighborhood, and I'm really bothered by that, I don't think it
works to put 24 low income units together I think we would have learned our
lesson in society on that. I don't think anyone in the Longfellow neighborhood
would object if Metro Plains was to put 24 low income houses into the Longfellow
neighborhood, nobody would object to that because that's what the neighborhood
is all about. And so I have real problems supporting that, I think it's against what
we're trying to do with dispersing housing across the city or at least dispersing it in
neighborhoods. And so that money I would like to see reconsider on how that's
done.
Lehman/Which is the recommendation from HCDC.
Champion/And I did check, I did check with the school district today and Longfellow
School has 22 percent of the students meet the requirements for low, or how do
they.
Pfab/Subsidized lunches.
Dilkes/Subsidized lunches.
Champion/Right and that's how one way of determining it, so the neighborhood certainly
is a little above average in low income housing and it doesn't mean it couldn't have
more but I think the concentration is what is the objection to this development.
Franklin/If I could make a couple of points. When HCDC makes it determinations,
location of the projects they fund is only a factor in so far as whether the zoning is
in place for whether those projects can locate there. In this case the issue of
location whether it was Village Green or Longfellow Manor was never an issue for
HCDC because they are making funding decisions.
Champion/No I know that.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 54
Franklin/And both places are zoned RS-8 and allow duplexes. Some of the discussions
about Longfellow Manor has been about land use as opposed to Longfellow
Manor or as opposed to Metro Plains versus reallocation of the money and so I
think that' s something just to keep in your heads. There is nothing that precludes
any low income housing developer except money from buying those same lots and
doing the same thing because there are no restrictions that we have placed on
where lots can be located. We tried to have a discussion, the Council tried to have
a discussion some time ago about scattered site housing and what that means and
what it doesn't mean. We asked HUD to give us some indicators of what
scattered site meant, and of course they have a national view and not an Iowa City
view and they could not relate to 24 units, I mean we're talking about is hundreds.
Lehman/A hundred units they might.
Franklin/Right.
Lehman/Well now for tomorrow night we're going to continue the public hearing, the
plan as presented that we're having the public hearing does not include Metro
Plains. That is the recommendation from HCDC is that they not be funded. Is that
correct?
Franklin/The recommendation from HCDC that they not be given an extension and that
the money be reallocated under option 1.
Lehman/Right, so in order to consider Metro Plains would require an amendment from
the Council.
Franklin/It would, yes, it would.
Lehman/It would also require an amendment to put the money that was going to go to
Metro Plains into a contingency or to readvertise.
Franklin/That's correct.
Lehman/Because the recommendation is for.
Franklin/Option 1.
Lehman/Option 1.
Franklin/Option 1 and to not extend.
Champion/But they did ask us.
Lehman/Oh Metro did.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 55
Champion/Right.
Lehman/Right, but in the absence of any positive action on our part they are not in the
mix unless we have an amendment to put them in the mix.
Champion/Right, right.
Kanner/One of the things, they sort of hinted this I think, one of the things in the minutes
from the Commission members, HCDC they said that they didn't want to advertise
for new projects because it would take too long and the money would just be
sitting, probably take a few months until we do the hearings and everything if we
did do one but it's going to take that long anyhow with either of the projects if we
went with Burns or Metro Plains because they still have to wait to see if they get
the tax credits or not and so I would say that's a real option that we can give it
back to HCDC and let these folks compete again and see if the full, we were
missing a few people from HCDC, get the full HCDC to look at whoever submits
new proposals and go through the process. How do people feel about that?
Lehman/Well I think that's a conversation that should occur tomorrow night after the
public hearing because we're going to be asked to consider a resolution at that
point if you wish to make that amendment and I think with the rationale that you
gave that's the sort of thing that probably should be in the minutes for tomorrow
night, but I think Karin laid out the options rather clearly. It would require a
positive action on our part to reinstate Metro. The recommendation as it is
presented would be to take the Metro Plains funding and would go to Burns &
Burns for his project, if we approve that with no amendments that's it, otherwise
we can readvertise or put the money in contingency and so those are the options
that we have. We'll open the hearing tomorrow night, probably not, I suspect
what needs to have said has already been said but we'll close the hearing and we'll
have first consideration with or without amendments.
Kanner/But I would hope that a representative from HCDC comes and talks about these
new possibilities, what they feel about opening up again, I'd like to hear from them
(can't hear).
Franklin/I think the vice chair, Lori is Amy the vice chair?
Bears/Yea.
Franklin/Amy Correia will be at your meeting tomorrow night for the CD proclamation
anyway. I think, isn't this a resolution, yea it's a resolution so you just have one
vote.
Vanderhoef/It just takes one because it has to be sent in.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 56
Franklin/No, no, there are no time constraints on sending this in.
Vanderhoef/We've already sent in the major plan.
Franklin/This, well when you look at the original memo from Steve Nasby too, there are
other amendments to the City Steps plan that are part of this. At some point we
just have to get that all together and we have to send it to HUD. But there's
nothing that compels us to do it right now. The time constraint if any is on Metro
Plains or Garden Prairie and that they need some decision to go for tax credits in
November. Okay.
Lehman/Okay thank you Karin.
Meetin~ Schedule
Lehman/Okay Council's schedule for September through December.
Karr/Mr. Mayor this was added to the agenda, when we discussed the schedule we
attempted to finalize the rest of the year and got bogged down and so you asked
that it be placed on the agenda at this time. We do need to decide tonight the
meeting schedule for the rest of the year because it does affect setting of some
public hearings for the next agenda.
Lehman/You know I've already heard at least two Council people who do not have their
calendars.
Champion/I'm okay though because ! realized when ! looked at Steve's calendar that my
market is going to be before Monday night.
Karr/We do have a resolution indicating first and third, we do have some conflicts, both
from the standpoint of Holidays, both on Yom Kippur and Labor Day, yea Labor
Day. We also have a suggestion by another Council member that the rest of the
year to move it to two and four rather than one and three.
Champion/Why?
Karr/You avoid a couple of the holidays, a couple of the known absences, Election day if
that matters, we don't have a city election but it is Election Day.
Vanderhoef/It misses League of Cities.
Karr/It misses the National League of Cities.
Lehman/In October are there conflicts with the?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 57
Karr/With one and three not at this time no.
Lehman/Then October would fly, September will not.
Karr/September will fly if you want to combine your work session and formal meeting
with Labor Day to the 3rd.
Lehman/It would be the 3rd and the 17th.
Karr/The 16th and 17th, Council Member Kanner has a problem, a conflict.
Champion/I don't mind combining.
Lehman/But we could, go to the 10th and 24th.
Vanderhoef/But that's following Labor Day.
Champion/Yea well that's Tuesday, Labor Day is Monday.
Lehman/Wait a minute.
Vanderhoef/I know but that means we're working a packet during the holiday.
Champion/Oh well Labor Day, sure, I think Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday,
Monday, Tuesday, I could probably.
Pfab/(can't hear).
Lehman/Well do, well, is Council prepared to talk about this tonight?
Champion/Yes I can talk about it.
Lehman/Well in September do we want to go 10th and 24th?
O'Donnell/Fine.
Champion/That's fine.
Lehman/Does that work Marian?
Karr/Yes.
Lehman/Okay let's do 10th and 24th. In September, October works without changing
anything.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 58
Karr/Then you'll have back to back meetings on the 24th and the October 1.
Lehman/Oh.
Champion/What's that mean?
Lehman/I see what you mean.
Karr/You go two and four.
Lehman/8th and 22nd.
Karr/That's two and four.
Lehman/I know.
Karr/ Okay.
Lehman/You want to go 8th and 22nd in October?
O'Donnell/ Fine.
Karr/Okay.
Lehman/November.
Karr/November you've got, I have no conflicts as far as Council Members, however we
do have three holidays, 11, 28 and 29 if that matters to anybody.
Lehman/So we could go 5th and 19th, wait a minute.
Karr/Yes if that.
Champion/I don't mind being here on Election.
O'Donnell/I don't, have it announced here, it would be kind of fun.
Lehman/Well we could go back to the normal schedule.
Karr/ You could go 5 and 19.
Lehman/Okay so September October we're going to go 2, 4, November we're going to
go back to 1, 3. Is that all right with everybody?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 59
Karr/Okay and then can we firm up December?
Lehman/December.
Karr/We've got National League of Cities the first week, we have traditionally gone to
one week, or one meeting in the month of December and it would either be 9, 10
or 16, 17.
Champion/9, 10.
Lehman/9, 10 would be better. Does that work with folks?
Vanderhoef/That's the hardest, we're coming back from League of Cities because you
don't get back until the 8th.
Champion/Your going to have to deal with it because we're in retail.
Kanner/Because of what?
Champion/Because she's going to have to deal with that because the next week is crazy.
Lehman/That's crazy.
Champion/That's a tough week when your in retail, you've got to know that.
Atkins/Oh you mean the week before.
Karr/I'll mock up a schedule.
Lehman/Mock it up, if there's a problem we'll get back to it.
O'Donnell/Fine.
Vanderhoef/Because we'd be four weeks between 9, 10 and the 6, 7 in January.
Champion/We can always have a special meeting if we have to.
Lehman/Yea but we do have, we have one, yea that's probably right.
Vanderhoef/Yea it works out 6, 7.
O'Donnell/That was quick.
Kanner/So December your saying what meeting?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 60
Vanderhoef/You won't consider 16, 177
Lehman/That's too tough.
Champion/We've done that before.
Kanner/The 9th and 10th.
Lehman/They can Fed Ex your packet to you, you can read it on the plane, there's
nothing else to do on a plane, you've got to be at the airport two hours early.
What are you going to do for two hours?
Vanderhoef/I don't know.
Lehman/Your going to read your packet that's what your going to do.
Vanderhoef/I can read my packet, keep it small.
Council Time
Lehman/All right council time.
Kanner/I had a few things, I want, we own a couple houses down on Capital Street, 504
and.
Atkins/Harrison and Capital.
Kanner/Yea and 510.
Atkins/Harrison, yea Harrison.
Vanderhoef/We own three down there.
Atkins/Three I think Steven.
Kanner/Three.
Vanderhoef/Yes, three in the middle.
Kanner/And I was wondering if Council would want to discuss those available specifically
for low or moderate income folks because we might be hanging onto those for
quite a while, they're suppose to be used eventually for parking arrangements.
From my investigations it might be way down the road until that happens, I was
wondering if we could get a memo and see what the finances are.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 61
Atkins/Sure.
Lehman/Can we accept vouchers as a City?
Atkins/I don't see why not Ernie.
Lehman/I mean I am very much opposed to taking less than market value for rent because
it's in the parking fund but if we can take vouchers, accept our own vouchers, we
can still maintain our rental.
Atkins/It has the same purpose of MLI yea.
Lehman/Sure.
Kanner/Well one thing I looked into can we say only vouchers, Section 8 vouchers and
apparently we can, and that's something we might want to do because.
Atkins/As policy you can all do that sure.
Kanner/It is tough to find places with Section 8.
Lehman/Well can you check that out?
Atkins/I'd say this thing is pretty routine, I can (can't hear).
Vanderhoef/I just have a question, since those houses were purchased with parking
money and were not going to be using the federal lot for a parking facility because
we chose the other location then would it behoove us to sell those and use the
money off of those houses to help retire the debt on the transportation center?
Champion/I, I guess I'm not really sure where those houses are at.
Vanderhoef/Right on Capital Street, right next to a parking lot.
Atkins/I suspect.
(END OF 02-60, SIDE TWO)
Atkins/To Dee's question and (can't hear), sure, retire the debt as opposed to.
Lehman/In fact I think the parking lot that we're talking about.
Vanderhoef/Went away.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 62
Lehman/No I don't think it's gone away, I just think it went farther away, I think it's
definitely still on the.
Atkins/Well let me get you answer's for those, that's pretty straight forward stuff I can do
that.
Vanderhoef/Well that might be a place to sell (can't hear) too.
Pfab/(can't hear) to go ahead.
Lehman/I don't think any of them are accessible.
Atkins/They're very old Irvin.
Pfab/Okay I was going to say, the reason, maybe we could only accept just vouchers,
(can't hear) I'm not opposed to it but I think there's a much problem with it
because of somebody, the City doesn't have any vouchers, they can figure out a
way.
Atkins/Let me get you the basics.
Lehman/We'll get basics.
Atkins/And then you can pick it up from there, I can get that for you, that's easy enough
to do.
Kanner/Traffic calming on Lexington, we had a new policy on putting up signs, and I
didn't see any there, we're not going to be surveying people but we said we'd put
up signs like rezoning signs for notice of other people around the area.
Vanderhoef/Rezoning.
Kanner/No, we talked about traffic calming, one thing we agreed on was that we would
not necessarily survey people outside of the immediate area but we would put up
notice, signs similar to the zoning signs that go up.
Wilburn/Like consideration for traffic calming was going to occur and contact us, I
remember that now.
Kanner/Yea and I didn't see any of those signs up, maybe they're around.
Wilburn/So it would be letting, even though it was a street that wouldn't be surveyed it
would still let people in the surrounding area know that.
Atkins/I'm sorry I'm lost on this one.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 63
Wilburn/It would let people know in the surrounding area know.
Atkins/What were these signs suppose to say?
Kanner/Let me try again, that there would, that we are doing a survey of the residents.
Atkins/A heads up that there's a survey occurring.
Kanner/That there might be a change in the traffic system.
Atkins/Okay, well we're not changing anything.
Wilburn/It was so that those folks knew that if they wanted to appear before Council
either saying yes or (can't hear).
Atkins/Oh ! understand now, okay, ! don't have the answer to that, I'll find that out.
Vanderhoef/Are there four people on Council that would truly like to talk about traffic in
the Manville Heights area and to also include a wider area for the survey when it
comes up this fall? ! had a discussion with JeffDavidson about this today and he
said if you want to talk about it we can put in on the agenda for next time and see
if anyone is interested for a wider survey.
Atkins/Just be careful for next time because we're really.
Lehman/No next time we're going to be really loaded.
Atkins/It's going to be piled up so.
Lehman/We have Airport Commission and the.
Vanderhoef/The only thing that ! had noticed and one of the reasons ! called Jeff just that
it didn't include a conversation about traffic count as well as the survey and that
was what some of the Manville Heights people had been asking for.
Atkins/They wanted the consequences of the closure to be identified through counts.
Vanderhoef/Well and they want to know traffic counts.
Atkins/ Yea that's what ! mean traffic counts.
Vanderhoef/So about traffic calming kinds of things and maybe we could have some
conversation on that.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 64
Champion/I thought they were going to do a traffic count, I thought we had asked Steve
that.
Vanderhoef/ Only on the streets that it was done on before Lexington was closed.
Champion/Oh right, sure.
Vanderhoef/But ! think we have more streets that the citizens are asking us about now.
Atkins/
Dilkes/If you want to talk about it, how about we talk to Jeff and see if it would be early
enough to do it at the first meeting in September. Would that work?
Lehman/Yea.
Vanderhoef/Okay, he's not going to do, he's not going to consider doing survey or traffic
counts until after September to be sure that all of the University is in session.
Dilkes/So it may be that the first meeting in September will work.
O'Donnell/Fine.
Atkins/I'll follow up on that.
Vanderhoef/Good.
Kanner/All right the last thing then is Ernie you said you did visit with James Thomas
about the sidewalk, what's happening with the sidewalk in front of James
Thomas'?
Atkins/Mr. Thomas wrote a letter to me through his letter Bob Downer, the letter
detailed a number of issues associated with this whole sidewalk whether he's
obligated, gave it to Eleanor, and Eleanor is doing the research right now. As far
as the conversation with Mr. Thomas ! gave Ernie some information, you said you
were going to, you had talked to him.
Lehman/Well ! just called him and he had indicated that they had sent a letter to the City
Attorney's office and ! understand your processing that now and so.
Dilkes/We are, we are reviewing the earlier subdivision documents and we've also asked
Mr. Downer for some additional information.
Kanner/ Well as far as the sidewalk in front of his house are we negotiating?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 65
Atkins/He has a walk in front of his house Steve it's that extra lot. And to my knowledge
right now he's still objects to putting it in.
Dilkes/The issue raises, the letter raises issues about his responsibility with respect to both
the trail that runs to the north of his house and well as his obligation to put in the
sidewalk in front of that lot.
Kanner/Could we get a copy of the letter he sent to you?
Dilkes/Sure.
Atkins/Sure, we'll put in your packet.
Champion/Does anybody know exactly what time the public hearing is Thursday morning
for the Senior Center?
Atkins/Yes, I do.
Champion/I couldn't remember if it was 9:00 or 9:30.
Atkins/It is, I've got it down for 9:00.
Champion/9:00.
Vanderhoef/When?
Atkins/9:00 Thursday morning County Board.
Champion/That's dealing with the cutting of the funds to the Senior Center, is that
correct?
Atkins/Yes.
O'Donnell/I'll go to that too.
Champion/They never bothered sending me a letter about it but I.
Lehman/Okay your going to go, Connie's going to go, you say your going to go Dee.
Vanderhoef/Well I could but.
Lehman/No, I just want to make sure we don't have more than three people.
Vanderhoef/I think our committee is enough, they can handle it as far as I'm concerned.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 66
Champion/Also when are we going to evaluate or look at our Alcohol Ordinance, didn't
we say we were going to do that after a year?
Lehman/September or probably October.
Dilkes/Yea I was thinking September or October, you know we've had some issues with
the specials ordinance and there has been some concentrated effort recently by the,
as you know from our last memo by the PD concentrating on sales to underage
people and so I'd kind of like to package together a report and talk about it all at
once.
Champion/And then somebody mentioned.
Vanderhoef/And can we get some statistics back then to on the PAULA' s?
Champion/We will.
Atkins/Annual.
Vanderhoef/PAULA's and I think one of the things people are expecting out of all of this
report is have we made a difference with what we've had?
Dilkes/Well I think it's going to be more of here's the progress to date, here's what we
think is working, here's what we think is not working, yea.
Vanderhoef/Okay.
Champion/And then two people brought to my attention, when you make a right hand
turn off of Clinton onto Jefferson, a lot of students walk there, there are no street
lights on that corner.
Atkins/I'm on Clinton and I turn to the right onto Jefferson.
Vanderhoef/To turn east, yes there is.
Lehman/Yes there is.
Atkins/Sure there is.
O'Donnell/There's stop lights there.
Champion/No, no, street lights.
Lehman/ Your talking about Linn and Jefferson.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 67
Vanderhoef/Oh street lights rather than traffic lights.
Lehman/Linn and Jefferson, that T intersection.
Atkins/Linn.
O'Donnell/You said Clinton and Jefferson.
Atkins/Clinton and Jefferson.
Champion/Clinton and Jefferson.
Kanner/Illuminating lights or traffic lights.
Champion/I didn't drive by there so.
O'Donnell/That's a one way going this way.
Champion/Yea so you'd have to turn right.
O'Donnell/Yea but there's stop lights there.
Champion/No, street lights.
Lehman/Oh.
O'Donnell/Your talking safety, street lights.
Champion/Yea and a lot of students walk there and they wear dark clothing and there' s
no street light and you.
Atkins/There isn't, on the way home tonight.
Champion/Somebody just mentioned it to me, I did not drive by it.
Atkins/I'll do it tonight on the way home.
Vanderhoef/Are the trees covering up some of the?
Atkins/Could be, it's not uncommon.
O'Donnell/Dubuque Street is very dark.
Lehman/We'll have to get a ruling from the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to (can't hear).
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 68
Vanderhoef/Well and those trees by the Newman Center that are at that corner too do
block some light too.
Champion/So somebody just mentioned it, that' s.
Atkins/It's great in the winter time.
Champion/Oh.
Atkins/No leaves.
Champion/Yes.
Atkins/I'll check that one for you, okay.
Lehman/We got in tonight's handouts Steven and I see you e-mail or sent letters to
several labor unions relative to the building code, did you bother to send any of
those same information to contractors?
Kanner/No I didn't.
Lehman/I feel this is inappropriate use of City's letterhead.
Kanner/Ernie I think that when your talking about sending out information I think that's
inappropriate to attack that kind of thing.
Lehman/No, no, no, I have no problem with sending information out but sending it under
the City of Iowa City letterhead when we don't notify all folks concerned I think is
inappropriate.
Kanner/I think then it's incumbent on you to do those kinds of things to make sure you
reach your constituents.
Lehman/Do we have a policy on use of letterhead?
Champion/I thought we did.
Atkins/I have always understood it to be that if you send out correspondence as a Council
member and use city letterhead and as long as you inform the other Council
members by a copy it's okay.
Lehman/And we can say anything we want to under city letterhead. I've never done it on
city letterhead because I've never felt.
Atkins/Send anything you want to.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.
July 15, 2002 Special Work Session Page 69
Kanner/You send things all the time under city letterhead that aren't necessarily.
Lehman/No I don't, I don't send anything under city letterhead.
Kanner/I've seen some things.
Lehman/You've never seen a letter from me to anybody on a city letterhead, you've seen
letters prepared by staff in answer to something.
Kanner/I don't know I see your name on it and I see it under city letterhead.
Lehman/If that's a policy we can do any letter we want under the city letterhead, as long
as we send a copy to the Council.
Atkins/It's really very much up to you, but as a Council Member communicating with a
constituency of any kind that the Council Member determines is in their interest
and it's on the letterhead and you all are copied then it seems to satisfy.
Dilkes/Rather than, Marian tells me there is a written policy let's get you a copy of that
and go from there.
Lehman/All right.
Champion/I thought it was just the opposite so I'd like to see that.
Lehman/Okay, anything else under Council Time? Okay guys, tomorrow night.
Atkins/Good night all.
Adjourned 9:15 PM
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of July 15, 2002.