HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-10 Transcription
m P~l
ITEM 2 SPECIAL PROCLAMATION.
Wilburn: Before we take community comment tonight, we do have a special
proclamation. This was not included in your packets. (reads
proclamation)
O'Donnell: (reads proclamation)
Vanderhoef: (reads proclamation)
Elliott: (reads proclamation)
Bailey: (reads proclamation)
Champion: (reads proclamation)
Correia: (reads proclamation)
Wilburn: (reads proclamation) (applause) Anything you want to add, Mr. Atkins,
or did 1.. .did 1.. . (laughter and several talking at once),
Atkins: I can't think of anything right now.
Wilburn: All right, well, we'll,..
Atkins: Go to work!
Wilburn: Go to work, all right. Really appreciate everything you've done for the
City, though.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#3 Page 2
ITEM 3 COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA).
Wilburn: This is a time on the agenda where we allow public to comment to the
Council, and to the public, about items that do not appear on tonight's
agenda. If you wish to address the Council and the community, please
step forward, state your name for the record, and please limit your
comments to five minutes or less. Is there anyone who cares to address
the Council and the community?
Jacobs: My name is Tom Jacobs. I live at 1132 Briar Drive in Iowa City, and uh,
on the, well, I'll just... we brought some petitions for you (laughter) so I'll
just read the petition. It's about storm water storage problems at the, any
rain that happens over two inches. Petition to City ofIowa.. .City Council
of Iowa City for action on storm water problems on Sandusky and Briar
Drives. It is about time the City ofIowa City take on the problem of the
storm water storage area backup, which is filling up the back yards and
causing water damage in the homes on Sandusky, North Briar, Aspen
Court, Pepper Drive, and Taylor Drive in southeast Iowa City, This
backup storm water storage into yards and homes has and will present
health hazards and physical damage ifnot cleaned up properly, as
demonstrated most recently in the approximately 7 inches of rain on the
morning of Friday, June 22, and the night before. We support averting the
storm water away from the undersized storm pipe, splitting the backyards
between Sandusky and Briar to allow that pipe to handle storm water with
minimal flooding, and not have the construction tear up our yards and
trees and fences, as was proposed in 1997, and aborted. We the
undersigned wish the City, Iowa City Council, to fix this backyard and
home flooding problem. The past attempts at berms and short walls aren't
working in any rain over 2 inches since 1981, and we have 35 to 40, urn,
signatures from the neighborhood. Some, some of whom are here. I'm a
little more nervous than I thought I'd be! (laughter)
Vanderhoef: It's okay.
Jacobs: We also have a video that I understand...a DVD, one of the
neighbors.. .back there with his hand up, Casey made a video of it and
transferred it to a DVD, but the bad part about it in my view is that, uh, he
was still sleeping during the worst part, so...it was starting to recede when
he filmed it, and it's, it's quite revealing, and it also includes Sandusky
Drive, the street of, and it was full. In our backyards, uh, it got up in some
people's measurements to 4 to 5 feet deep, and in the City, in the street, it
looked like a couple of feet deep or so, and uh, then blocked traffic.
Sometimes they put, the street people put out cones and sometimes cars
just stall, but uh, we've been there since 99 and it's happened about any
times that we get over an inch and a half, two inches in a short time, and
now that the river's high, we could get it at any time, and uh, I'll just give
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#3
Page 3
up my time and hope that.. .that us and the staff will be talking. We did
call one of the engineers, urn, who's name I knew I'd forget - Brian Boelk
- and he came out and looked at it, but it was after the rain and he said
there are some plans on the books, but we're here to try to push some of
those plans and get some people talking about this subject.
Wilburn: I would recommend, if you have a DVD, that you can submit a copy to the
City Clerk's office, or copies, and the Council may check them out and
view them at their leisure. Chair will entertain a motion to accept public
correspondence.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Correia: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Correia. Discussion?
Bailey: Urn, there are plans on the books to get something done?
Atkins: I'll do my best recollection. It was about 8 to 10 years ago, and it was, we
called it the Sandusky Drive Project, and there had been significant
neighborhood support for it, but I think some of you may recall that at the
public hearing, the neighborhood expressed its objections to it, and we
have done sufficient staff work on it. There is another alternative, we had
an alternative, as Mr. Jacob suggested, going through the backyards, but
there also may be one by using the right of way in the streets, um, what I'd
like to do is kind of get you a summary of where we are with all of this,
and we'll share that, obviously, with the neighborhood, and then you can
decide if you want that on the Capital Improvement Plan. We can do that
fairly quickly.
Wilburn: Sounds good.
Champion: It's been a long-standing problem.
Atkins: Yeah, if, again, if you remember. We had a lot of support for it and we
had neighborhood meetings and came to a hearing time and just all fell
apart.
Wilburn: All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Carries 7-0. Would
anyone else care to address the Council on an item that does not appear on
tonight's agenda?
Jacobs: My name is Francine Jacobs. I'm Tom's wife, and I kind of want to
address the other half of the problem. Urn, we've been there 7 years and
we've had three major floods within our house. Our house just happens to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#3
Page 4
be the only one in this neighborhood that sits...a permit was issued for a
new addition that sits actually into the storm water area, so it's a $40,000
addition and every time we get one of these heavy, fast rains, we're
flooded out of the addition. I have pictures of our house of June 22nd that
I'd like to submit for the Council Members to look at, and urn, Casey, who
made our video and did a wonderful job of it, our next door neighbor, also
made this book that shows how all this storm water works, and it has
pictures in here of people in our same neighborhood with three-foot
trampolines under water, and it's.. .it's always like this. Any time we have
a heavy rain, and it's.. .it's devastating. I mean, when you, when you live
in a home that you have to have the sheetrock removed, all the carpet and
pads pulled up. We had tremendous amount of, uh, mold, mildew, all over
our house this time that we had to have a carpenter come in and take care
to make sure everything was dried out, and we're now sleeping upstairs on
a mattress on the floor because our house is in total chaos and there's no
use in replacing sheetrock when it's going to happen again. So, if you
would please, we'd love to have you look at these, along with that video,
which the video is one of the best that's ever been taken, as far as really
showing you what's going on, and urn, that's.. .I'm the one that did the leg
work for all the signatures from all the other neighbors, and I was amazed
at how much some of these neighbors have went through. Urn, some of
them have been flooded severely 7 times, in that neighborhood -
Sandusky, Pepper, Aspen Court, Briar Drive where we're from - urn,
there's a tremendous turnover in home sales because who wants to stay in
a flooded house? So it just keeps getting worse. They sell, new ones
come in, uh, realtors don't disclose, because if they disclose they can't sell
their property. It's getting to be a vicious circle, but most of the people
that I talked to that are on that list are new, fairly new to the neighborhood
within the last ten years, and very eager to get something done, so I'm
hoping as a neighborhood group we can all work together and alleviate
this problem, because I can't go through it again.
Wilburn: Entertain a motion to accept correspondence.
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Correia: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Correia. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign. Carries 7-0. Anyone else care to address the Council
on an item that does not appear on tonight's agenda?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4a
ITEM 4
Wilburn:
Davidson:
Bailey:
Davidson:
Page 5
PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
a) REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.35 ACRES OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 802 S. CLINTON STREET FROM INTENSIVE
COMMERCIAL (CI-1) ZONE TO NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC
(P-l) ZONE (REZ07-00009)
1. PUBLIC HEARING
This is a public hearing. (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. Mr.
Davidson.
Thank you, Council, Mr. Mayor. This item is a rezoning of property
owned by Johnson County that has been zoned CI-l, and the request is to
zone it to P-I. This is for construction of a Human Services building, uh.
You can see, on the diagram here, the alley. This is the block, by the way,
which formerly had Hawkeye Lumber on it, to orient people, and a couple
of other private properties. The alley in the middle ofthe property has
been vacated already, resulting in a solid square block here that is under
the County's ownership. Uh, the rezoning, I think you'll recall with the
new Zoning Code, there are now two.. .when we have public property, it's
always been zoned P. With the new Zoning Code, we have two
classifications - P-l and P-2. P-I are basically for local designations of
government. P-2 is for state and federal levels of government. This
proposal would go to P-l, and with P-l, we do have, uh, what resulted
with that designation, our development standards that we formerly did not
have with the P zoning classification, but the County would be required to
adhere to parking and landscaping requirements and lighting requirements.
So, ifthere had been adjacent residential property, there are also setback
requirements, but because there isn't residential property adjacent to this,
that's not an issue. Um, any questions about this?
Urn, I have a question about traffic patterns down there. I assume that as
this progresses we'll be looking at that, because I think it will be
challenging.
Yeah, we have had some discussion with the County in terms of their
overall campus planning down here about possibly modifying the arterial
system, and we've indicated to them that that is possible. It would require
them to work with us, in terms of, you know, some property swaps
potentially, um. I have not heard. Andy Chappell is here. He may wish
to address that question. I have not heard any specific requests in terms of
that. My understanding that is they intend to have Benton Street continue
to be a portion of the arterial system, between the County Administration
Building, which is directly to the south, and the new building. What I
believe is under consideration at this time is an overhead walkway
between the two buildings, which I think is an excellent idea, given that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4a
Bailey:
Davidson:
Bailey:
Davidson:
Chappell:
Page 6
then we don't have to deal with an at-grade crossing, people going
between the two buildings.
And so we'll be looking at that earlier rather than later, because of the site
plan design and the parking considerations, right?
Well, our review of it will be with Benton Street as an arterial. I mean, we
haven't had.. .as I say, there has been a proposal, and it's been in
conjunction with their acquisition of the old National Guard Armory
property, which has not been consummated, but there is a deal in the
works, where we might relocate the arterial system, such that Benton,
between these two buildings, would no longer be part of the arterial
system. However, the proposal you have before you, it is part of the
arterial system.
Thanks.
Any other questions?
Good evening. My name is Andy Chappell. My address is 911 Rider
Street, and I work with the County Attorney's office, and I represent
Johnson County on this matter. Urn, everything Jeffhas told you is
absolutely correct. Urn, as to the access issues, based on some
conversations the County had, David Kemp and some other folks, uh, he's
our Facilities Manager, had with City staff a couple of years ago, the plan,
very tentative plan at this stage. Obviously we haven't gone through site
plan, but would be to access Clinton and Dubuque Street, um, there also
was talk of having a pull-over on Benton Street, but specifically, at least
the last conversation we had, there was no desire to put a bus stop there,
concern getting back out onto the street, I think, after a bus pulled over,
but maybe a pedestrian drop off, but the access to the parking lot would
be.. .preferably Clinton and Dubuque Street is sort of the initial, that's
what they're working on at this point. Urn, the building would be oriented
east to west, and be, urn, tentatively at the south of the building, with
parking up towards the north of that block. Obviously we've got the
railroad. We'll want to do some.. .provide a nice transition, rather than
placing the building right next to the railroad. Things are tentative on,
obviously, until we go through site plan and um, actually get the design
done. We're moving forward on the design. We've hired Novack Design
Group out of Cedar Rapids. They've been talking to our
department.. . several departments, from sort of all over other facilities are
moving to this site. So they're working on that. The plan is to have
a.. .between 80 and 90,000 square foot building. There.. .we're looking at
finishing at this point just the lower two levels - it'll be a three-story
building, finishing the lower two levels and having the third floor for
future growth, that we can then come back and fill in later as we need it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4a
Page 7
Urn, they are, the architect, is exploring a skywalk, if you will, across to
the County Administration Building. I too remember a discussion of
perhaps making some changes to the arterials there. Urn, I wasn't part of
that conversation, but my recollection is that it was sort of conversation
and that was it, so we haven't assumed anything would happen there. Urn,
my understanding is in order to do that, the Armory property would have
to be in play, because there would have to be some significant changes to
what would be the southwest comer of that Armory property, in order to
provide room for, I think the idea...is that right, Jeff? To make part of
Clinton Street that is now one-way, south of Benton Street, make that a
two-way, which then obviously is going to require a little more right-of-
way. We, at this point obviously, do not own the Armory property, and
until their new site is built, their new facility is built, we won't own that
property. Other than that, we appreciate the City's consideration of this,
and I'm happy to try and answer any other questions you might have.
Wilburn:
Thank you. Would anyone else care to speak at the public hearing? Oh,
thank you, does anyone have ay Ex Parte communications on the side that
they wish, that they have to disclose at this time? Okay. Thank you.
(pounds gavel) Public hearing is closed.
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST
CONSIDERATION)
O'Donnell: Move first consideration.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell.
Champion: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Correia: I will abstain. I have a conflict of interest. The department I work for in
the County will be moving to that building.
Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries 6-0, with Correia abstaining due to a conflict of
interest.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
ITEM 4c
ITEM 4d
Wilburn:
Davidson:
Dilkes:
Bailey:
Wilburn:
Dilkes:
Davidson:
Page 8
CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 15.42 ACRES
OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF WHISPERING
MEADOWS DRIVE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) TO HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RS-12) (REZ06-00025)
CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 34.86 ACRES
OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF WHISPERING
MEADOWS DRIVE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) AND HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RS-12) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY 8 (OPD-8) AND PLANED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
12 (OPD-12) (REZ06-00025 AND REZ-6-00026)
1. PUBLIC HEARING
This public hearing is continued from June 19th.
We had extensive discussion of these two items, and I guess at the last
meeting you did take the two items together and we can sort of have the
same discussion this evening, if you'd like, but we can also speak
individually to the two matters you have before you, in terms of the two
separate conditional rezoning agreements. Uh, I won't spend any more
time with the slides than you need to have very briefly. This is the first,
the first rezoning that is before you. It's 15.42 acres, and the proposal is to
have the property rezoned from RS-8 to RS-12.
Jeff, can I just interrupt you for a minute. You want to just clarify whether
we're talking about both public hearings, or should we deal with them
both at the same time.
Can we do that?
Yeah, that's fine.
Okay.
Just to put it into context then, this first rezoning is a portion of a larger
one, represented there. Uh, and they do relate to each other in terms of the
eventual platting of the. . .the second one cannot be approved without the
first one being approved, without the plat being revised, so you'd have to
defer both of them in t hat instance. In the case of this one, the issue with
the Conditional Zoning Agreement is the extension of. . . Whispering
Meadows Drive, which is shown here in relation to what is being
proposed. The increase in density that's being proposed. You have heard
the developer's comments. Staffs' opinion is that it should be the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
Correia:
Davidson:
Correia:
Davidson:
Correia:
Page 9
developer's financial responsibility to extend that street to the west
property line. I guess more accurately, the west property line of the
Sycamore Greenway. The greenway is what complicates this, compared
to the typical subdivision that we would have where it's always the case.
The subdivider is required to extend a street to the property line so it can
be continued in the adjacent subdivision. In this particular case, if the
developer extends it to the west boundary of their subdivision, it leaves the
greenway in between, and so a determination was made by the Planning
and Zoning Commission, City staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission, it should be the developer's responsibility to do that, in
exchange for the increase in density that results from the property being
rezoned, and that is a matter of contention, which you wanted to discuss
with the developer this evening. The CZA is not signed, as far as we're
aware. Eleanor? Urn...
Could you just point out the other access points in this, where they're
gomg.
...1 have a better diagram here. Yeah, this one which shows the.. . since
we're talking about this all together. This shows the sensitive areas that
are part of the second rezoning, so in a roundabout way, I'm answering
Amy's question here. This is the woodland area that would be impacted
by the proposed development of the property. This is the wetland area,
and it's basically a reconstruction of this hydrologic system through here.
It is a blue-line stream currently, which makes it subject to the sensitive
areas' ordinance. The.. .with respect to the handling of the sensitive.
features, that appears to no longer be an issue, it has been worked out to
everyone's satisfaction, both City staff, Planning and Zoning Commission,
the developer, and the governmental entities that regulate these features.
Everyone seems to feel that everything's been tied up fine there. To
answer Amy's question, there is a proposed connection to Nevada, which
is right here. Whispering Meadows Drive would continue here. There
then is a connection to the south, which would.. .at some point in the
future, and then of course the one that's proposed here, which would
eventually extend over then to Sycamore Street. I think I have a, well,
here's an aerial which shows.. .let's see. Actually, I'm going to go
to. ..here. That's one that kind of shows the street connections as
proposed, and how this property fits into the, the transportation network as
a whole in this area. Our concern, which you've heard before but I'll just
repeat very quickly is we estimate...
I'm sorry. Can we.. .I'm not oriented at all to where things are.
Okay.
So, in this photo. . .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
Davidson:
Correia:
Davidson:
Correia:
Davidson:
Correia:
Davidson:
Correia:
Davidson:
Page 10
In this photo here, here's Whispering Meadows Drive, which will continue
to the west in this area, and as proposed, will continue to the east in this
area, via a street to eventually be constructed through General Quarters
subdivision.
Right, but I mean, I need, where's the school?
School is right there. Excuse me, right there. That's Whispering
Meadows Park. School's right here.
And we're all the way down here. Okay.
Lakeside Drive, Sycamore is the main traffic thoroughfare. This is
Nevada, which is the street we feel without this connection here...
Okay, but so.. .we have Nevada...
This street here,
That's.. . and then.. .there's..,
There would be an access here. This is an existing build. . . that is
developing. Obviously there will be more constructed down here at some
point in the future. It doesn't really go anywhere now. Urn, so you would
have the ability to go this way. Eventually, you would have the ability to
go this way again. That wouldn't connect to anything at the current time.
Urn, without this connection here, staffs' concern was, we estimate that
the full, if these rezonings were approved as proposed, we estimate 850
vehicle trips per day, based on our standard 7 trips per unit per day. 850
vehicle trips would then make a traffic volume on Nevada. You know,
Nevada is constructed as a collector street, but any of you who have been
down there know it has not been functioning as a collector street. The
people who live on that street who are long-term residents are used to that
basically being a local residential street. Urn, the local residential street
volume that we use as, in our judgment as being acceptable, is 500
vehicles a day. I'm sure it's substantially under that right now. It would
be substantially over that right now, we believe, if this connection was not
made and this subdivision built out, without the connection made here.
The other concern that you've heard us raise is the impact to this portion
of Lakeside Drive. We do not know for certain, and I wouldn't want to
present it as such, how much traffic at this intersection will go this way -
traffic generated from the proposed subdivision - and how much will go
this way. It's a judgment call. We have had on-going concerns, which in
my former position I've been directly involved with, uh, with the issue of
kids from this neighborhood having to cross Lakeside Drive and get to the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
Correia:
Davidson:
Correia:
Davidson:
Correia:
Davidson:
Correia:
Davidson:
Correia:
Davidson:
Correia:
Davidson:
Page 11
school. We've done several traffic studies to determine if the level of
traffic control there is adequate. I believe we have crossing guards there
currently, at the school change times of day, but that is the impact on
Lakeside Drive is, and the impact on Nevada, are our principal concerns,
why we feel like, particularly with the increase in density that's being
proposed, uh, that this connection is justified, and of course, the issue may
not be whether or not it's justified. The issue is who pays for it, and...
So, Nevada is.. .you said was, when it was built, it was built to be a
collector.
Yes, it was, and that is. . . that is judged by the street width.
Okay. So it has the width to function. . .
And at the present time, Amy, there's parking.. .it's wide enough there's
parking on both sides...
.. .parking on both sides, because...it didn't need to be a collector, but I
mean, it was built as a collector.
Sized as a collector, yes.
Sized, because we anticipated there would be development.
Yes, we did.
Okay, and for a collector street, what's the...
Collector street volume is 2,500 as a, goes from 500 to 2,500 as being the
appropriate.. .
One of the things I'm wondering about too is, urn, you know, of course we
don't know, but probably a good amount of people who may move into
this planned neighborhood would have children, and they may be traveling
that way, on Lakeside, to drop their children off at school or pick them up,
whether we make a different...or not. I mean, I think: that the likelihood is
probably there for it.
Oh, certainly a judgment call on Council's part. You know, the issue of
secondary access has been, urn, raised, and obviously, there are more than
one means of access in and out of this development. Secondary access, as
we typically look at it, is not a consideration. It's more the volume of
traffic on Nevada and the issue of the school on Lakeside Drive that are
concerns of ours. And as I mentioned, it may not be whether or not this
street extension should be made, but simply who pays for it. That's the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
Page 12
issue. The CZA, as proposed, which is not signed, has the developer
paying 100% of the cost of that, which is estimated, with the greenway 60
feet wide, but with the drainage structure that would be a part of it,
estimated at $260,000,
Elliott: And, Jeff, you said that's because that's in kind of a no-man's land, it
belongs to neither development.
Davidson: Well, the greenway obviously belongs to the City. It's a storm water
detention area.
Elliott: Right.
Davidson: And a bike trail.
Elliott: But it belongs to the City - not to either of the developers.
Davidson: That's correct.
Correia: So, this would be a, this would cross the Sycamore Greenway, it would
cross our bike trail, where we have bicyclists and pedestrians and folks
walking their dog. So we would be moving a collector across our green...
Davidson: You know, crossing the greenway is clearly not anything that we, we
prefer to do, but we do feel like the trade-off here is something we
recommend.
Vanderhoef: Tell me the length of.. .ah, street on Sycamore between these two
arter.. .or collectors.
Davidson: Are you talking about the distance between here and here, Dee?
Vanderhoef: Uh-huh. Is it a half-mile?
Davidson: Boy.. .halfmile, quarter mile.. .probably closer to a quarter mile.
Vanderhoef: Okay. One of the things that strikes me about this whole area, and putting
all the traffic on Lakeside is, yes, we have crossing guards at the
beginning of the day and at the end of the day of the school year. We have
nothing all summer, and at this point in time, we have no neighborhood
park, other than at the school site. So, for access for all the children to use
that park and playground area, they're going to be crossing Lakeside, and
ifit is carrying all the traffic, and there are no crossing guards, uh, that's a
safety issue that I'm not willing to work with, and I'm not willing to put
all of my public safety onto Lakeside, because ifthat one gets blocked, we
have to have a secondary access. I mean, it's just not safe when we cannot
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
Page 13
get emergency vehicles into an area and there's only one way in and out.
So, I see the street needing to be there. There's no doubt about that in my
mind. Ah, as undeveloped land that uh, would not have to happen, but we
have given additional concessions to increase density, which is the way we
have chosen to build our city and try to put mixed kinds of housing and
sizes of housing and cost of housing, and with that increased density, uh, I
think it's a fair trade-off for the developer to pay for the road.
Davidson: I would point out that what Dee was referring to with the mix of housing
types and increase in density, that is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan in this area.
Vanderhoef: Yes!
Bailey: Well, were there other examples where roads cross our trails, and how do
we handle that?
Davidson: Well, you handle it without control, unless there's a need for control. I
mean, that's basically how we handle any...
Bailey: So where else do we have that?
Vanderhoef: All of our trails. (several talking)
Davidson: You know, an extreme example, Regenia, probably be the most extreme
example I can think of would be where the Iowa River Corridor Trail
crosses Burlington Street.
Bailey: Right.
Davidson: Where there's a very high level of control. Well, I guess, let's take Iowa
Avenue, Benton Street. The level of control there is not needed because
we have an underpass. At Burlington Street we weren't able to construct
an underpass, so for the aggregate crossing, we have walk signals and
push buttons and that sort of thing. Urn, in an area like this, we would see
basically what the level of traffic and the level of bicycles were, and if the
probability that bicycle and motor vehicle aren't going to interact with
each other, then we would leave it uncontrolled. Once there becomes a
need for control, you need to put stop signs on the street, or on the trail,
and that would ultimately be a matter before you.
Elliott: When it comes to the process of crossing over that greenway, that
$250,000, $260,000, I don't understand the thought processes on that,
because if the developer were going to develop on a more compact way,
which we have said we want done throughout the city, for. . . to provide
more affordable housing. If the developer does that, which we want done,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
Davidson:
Elliott:
Correia:
Elliott:
Correia:
Bailey:
Correia:
Bailey:
Correia:
Page 14
we think the developer should pay for it. If the developer does something
that provides larger lots, and things that we want less of, the city would
pay. I don't understand that thought process, and not for you, Jeff.
I. .. with us up here.
Yeah, I guess my understanding of the thought process of the Planning
and Zoning Commission who provided the recommendation to you was
that the increase in density justified the expense to the developer. You
may agree or disagree with that, but I believe that was the thought process,
Bob.
I don't understand penalizing someone for doing what we would prefer be
done.
I mean, it does.. .I'm going to say that I partially agree with you, Bob, in
that...
That's a break!
I know, in that, I mean, I do. I feel like we have... this is that we, the
community has been, you know talks about affordable housing, has been
asking that the private market do some things that we want to see, without
having, you know, government involvement in it, and I feel like we're
getting this in terms of the price points that the developer says they're
going to be targeting - the $110,000 to $150;000, if my notes are correct
from the last public hearing for the townhouses, and the $150,000 to
$200,000 for, urn, single-family homes, and the, you know, median priced
home right now is around $189,000 or something like that, and so I think
we're going to be getting a significant amount of affordable housing stock,
which is what we've been talking about, urn, and so then, we're imposing
regulatory barriers, urn, to that, which I think is something I'm interested
in looking at and examining, so that how is the city.. . supporting or...
So are you interested in requiring that as part of the CZA, the affordability
price points?
No.. .not necessarily, because what I.. .what I'm wanting to see is I'm
wanting to see the market do what we need in the market, without having
that regulation. I mean, I think we see that, you know, we have seen some
of this development, these prices, from".
You don't think it would exist if they have to pay for the extension?
No, I didn't say I didn't think it would.. .I'm just.. .I'm questioning
whether we need that collector.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 15
Champion: Oh, I think we do!
Bailey: Well, I.. .okay, so I'm just going to disclose my Ex Parte, because it sort
of helped me frame some thinking. I talked to my mom, Lorraine Bailey,
and I know that I don't necessarily have to disclose that, but she was really
interested in seeing, urn, and I'll talk about the trees later, but she really
had a question about ifthis could be a cul-de-sac, and so, you know, I
really...I talked to, urn, Jeff, and then we talked about the cul-de-sac, and I
think we need that additional access. I think that that needs to happen, and
I do think our, the way we usually do it is the developer does pay and I
think that that's a good policy. Just because I'm pretty familiar, as you
are, with the neighborhood, and Dee's right. There might be crossing
guards during the school year, but there are lots of kids along Lakeside
Drive. It's not a neighborhood where I see, I mean, lots of kids on bikes
particularly, and it's not a neighborhood I see a lot of bike helmets or urn,
you know, lots of good, safe bicycling going on. So, there are just lots of
kids along Lakeside, and I would be very concerned about putting more
traffic on Lakeside Drive. I think it has plenty now, and even though the
other street is built to be a collector, I'm not sure that it could handle it, as
well, because there are just so many kids playing on the street in this
neighborhood. So, I think we need that additional access, so I'm going to
have to tell my mom no cul-de-sac from my perspective, I guess.
(laughter) But that's another problem I'll worry about later.
Wilburn: Just a reminder, we are still in the public hearing and so...
Bailey: Oh, okay, so I didn't...I just think that it's warranted, the other access
point.
Davidson: Before you proceed with the hearing, the one other issue that we haven't
addressed that was still out there was in terms of the open space
dedication. I think some of you have had the opportunity to go out and
look at Outlot A, which... the staff recommendation was Outlet C, plus
fees in lieu of the remaining calculation. Outlet C is simply a connection
to the greenway trail, which we think is an excellent idea, but it doesn't
achieve the full requirement and so we are suggesting fees in lieu. The
developer had suggested dedicating a portion of Outlot A. The Planning,
or excuse me, the Parks and Rec Commission had discouraged that, just
because of the condition of it, very rough property, not really suitable for
playground type area or anything like that. So the recommendation
remains, remains that Outlot C, plus fees in lieu. Now that is not subject
to the Conditional Zoning Agreement. That's something that will be
handled with the plat. You will receive the plat with the third reading of
the zoning ordinance, so.. .you don't need to worry about that now.
Correia: Currently what the developer wants is Outlot C, plus Outlot A?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 16
Davidson: I think that was (unable to hear)...a portion, Wasn't entirely Outlot, all of
Outlot... yeah, it was a portion of Outlot A.
Correia: Okay, so the.. .but the offer is Outlot C, which we want because that's
adjacent to the greenway, and then a portion of Outlot A, which is
wooded, which is something that the neighbors requested, maintaining
wooded areas?
Davidson: Right.
Bailey: If Outlot A isn't dedicated, what would it be? Would it stay?
Wilburn: We can't have extended dialog off the microphone, so if you'd like to hear
from the developer, then...I need him to come to the microphone.
Bailey: I would.
Gordon: I'm Steve Gordon with AM Management, the developer of the project.
Um, Outlot A is there regardless, either way. Urn, I guess my, our request
was since there's substantial amount of green space in this development,
that some of it be taken as the green space requirement for the City, as
opposed to keeping it all private within the development, as owned by the
homeowner's association and then paying the fee. That was the request,
and my understanding is that Parks and Rec may consider it, if the area is
cleaned up, and my question was what does that mean - what's cleaned up
mean - and I guess I would have to weigh, you know, what are the fees in
lieu of cost, versus what does it cost to clean up a wooded area, and will it
affect a wooded area. I mean, obviously we don't want to cut down any
trees. That's kind of, you know, what we're trying to save as many of.
So.. .that was my last understanding. (several talking at once) If!
understand what cleanup means, then maybe we could make a more
educated decision on that.
Champion: And when you're talking about fees in lieu of, instead of, I lost the
number.. .the trees.. .instead of the trees, what was the fee, what would the
amount be? Do you know?
Gordon: I don't think that's determined yet either.
Dilkes: It's a formula set by Code, City Code, and I don't know what the amount
IS.
Gordon: Whatever it is, times 1.82 acres, that will be the fee, or dedicate 1.82 or
more acres, that's the two choices.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 17
Vanderhoef: 1.28 you said?
Gordon: 1.82.
Vanderhoef: 82.. . acres. Okay. I'll disclose that I had a conversation today with Terry
Trueblood, Director of Parks and Recreation, and I also walked this area
with our previous Planning Director, Karin Franklin, prior to her
retirement and got a good look at this whole area from both sides of the
woods. Uh, and when I take this in consideration with the traffic plan and
where this one park is, our growth is happening going south, and we've
got a busy Sycamore Street, which is an arterial which keeps small, young
children from crossing that. That's what makes the barrier between
neighborhood "A" and neighborhood "B." So this presently is in the
Grand Wood neighborhood, with a northern located neighborhood park
that's flat for children to have various kinds of activities. Uh, as we grow
south, I see a need, and I have requested that in this new park plan that the
developer look and decide where the new five to seven acre neighborhood
park will be placed down there. I also checked to see if there was any
money in the Grant Wood pot, because as you know, when we chose a
location, it may all be on one developer's property and they only have to
give us what they're required to give, and we have to buy the rest if we
want to aggregate land to have that five to seven acre park. Uh,
personally, we have enough right-of-way along the greenway, 00, park
that we can put bench-kind of amenities along that wooded section if we
choose to. I am going to be supporting the, uh, option of money in lieu of,
so that when we are ready to buy that neighborhood park land, we will
have some money in the kitty to do it, and it will certainly benefit the
development that you're planning to build in this location.
Davidson: Any other questions for me, before you proceed with your hearing?
O'Donnell: Yeah, Jeff, if they reduced the density, is the Whispering Meadows
interchange required?
Davidson: Whispering Meadows...
O'Donnell: If you reduce the density of this project, and we shorten lots to increase
density to allow for more affordable housing, if we reduce the number of
lots available, how would that affect the Whispering Meadows...
Davidson: Well, obviously, if you reduce the traffic generated from..,
O'Donnell: Right.
Davidson: .. . from the subdivision, and not approving the first Conditional Zoning
Agreement, let's say that did not go through, it all remained RS-8, we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
Wilburn:
Gordon:
Davidson:
Gordon:
Davidson:
Gordon:
Correia:
Gordon:
Davidson:
Gordon:
Davidson:
Page 18
estimate that would reduce the number, and it's an estimate, that we would
reduce the number of lots by 20 or 22. So, you know, multiply that times
seven and you get an idea of what, you know, 140, 150 vehicles a day.
Now does that.. . you know, we'd have to reconsider, and we haven't
really, uh, the necessity for the connection with 150 fewer vehicles a day.
Basically going from 800 to 150 vehicles a day for the whole subdivision
to 700. Now if the second Conditional Zoning was not approved, the one
that pertains to the sensitive areas, and it remained just a standard
subdivision, we estimate it probably would be about half the number of
lots proposed, and again that's an estimate, but from 122 to more like 60
because the developer is obviously able to create a number of lots by
redoing the sensitive features, which said, everybody's quite comfortable
with. So, at that point, Mike, then you're dealing with substantially less
traffic volume. I think under that scenario you would start questioning the
necessity of that connection. I kind of doubt you would do that with just
the initial rezoning from RS-8 to RS-12. It is a judgment call.
Unfortunately it's not a you cross this line and then yes, and then you
cross it the other way, and it's.. .no, it is a judgment call.
Thank you, Jeff.
. . . Whispering Prairie, what standard is that? Want to (unable to
hear).. .Whispering Prairie is another way that, I believe, people will
take.. .
That one?
.. . especially if they're heading.. .no, go back to the aerial that had the
blue. ..
The aerial. . . yeah.
Whispering Prairie is the next street to the east from Nevada.
Do you have an arrow on it or.. . (several talking)
That's Whispering Prairie, that you know. . .
Do you know what the width of that is? If you tell me the width I can tell
you.
I don't.
I mean, it's typically 25 to 28 for a local street, and 31 for a, a collector.
My guess in looking at that is it's local street. I mean, I don't know for
sure. Thank you,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 19
Champion: You think they're going to take that road? They'll have to go out of their
way to get to it. That's not how people drive.
Gordon: Pardon?
Champion: They'll have to go out of their way to get to that street.
Gordon: No, they would come right out, and go right up there, and zip up here, and
then go out, the highway's right here. There's Highway 6, and so, you
know, my feeling is that, I mean, I go over here a lot. We developed this,
this is not developed down here. This street goes all the way to here. I go
over there a lot, and come out, this is a very straight, easy road to come
out, and right on Lakeside and then you're right at the highway and you
can go either.. .on the highway and get wherever you want to get pretty
quickly.
Davidson: Yeah, and I would point out. . .
Gordon: .. .nobody knows who will go what direction.
Davidson: Yeah, that's exactly right, and I would point out that putting on the
transportation planner hat that I used to wear, the true collector in this area
is Lakeside, because it's the one that really funnels the neighborhood
traffic to one arterial or the other, if you include this as kind of an
extension of Lakeside, then you would include Nevada, and that was
clearly what the intention was however many - 30 or 40 years ago - when
that street was constructed. So, but I will tell you, having worked
extensively with our neighborhood associations that with a situation like
this, where there are long-term residents that are accustomed to living on a
street that's been a stub for a long time, they don't understand that
functional class issue of, well, it's a collector street, it should have higher
volume, because for the last 30 years, it has not had higher volume. So,
you know, we are trying to be sensitive to that, as well. Um, I mentioned
when I was discussing this with Amy, whom I'm sure was going to
disclose that Ex Parte communication, earlier today that, you know, I think
a logical expectation would be that if, if you did not do this connection,
and had the traffic on Nevada, that you have the traffic calming program,
for example, and it would be a logical street that would be eligible for the
traffic calming program, and that might be one manifestation of the higher
traffic volumes that you would consider for a traffic calming project. Any
other questions for me?
Champion: Just one. The new road, the arrow coming towards me, what is that going
to connect to?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 20
Davidson: Are you talking about this one, Connie? Excuse me...
Champion: The big one, the fat one.
Davidson: Right here?
Champion: Yes.
Vanderhoef: Sycamore.
Champion: Oh, of course.
Davidson: Yes, Sycamore is here, and that has been a question several of you have
had, and I think I have a good, yeah, that picture right there. Okay, this
shows Whispering Prairie coming through. This is an existing street that's
built in General Quarters right now. This would be the proposed street,
and several of you said, well, what if that isn't built for twenty years?
Urn, you know, that's something that we don't have control over, I mean
unless you were to do it as a public project, which is not likely. It is
possible, we have just recently done one of these in Sand Hill subdivision,
connecting Sand Hill subdivision to Sycamore Street. You can do a
temporary gravel connection through here, if that's something that as a
policy you desire to do, in order to make that connection prior to the
private sector wanting to do that. We could negotiate something like that
with the property owners. So it is possible to make that connection sooner
in a temporary manner. You can always chip seal it if dust gets to be an
issue with the gravel. That is something that's possible to do.
O'Donnell: But we really have no idea when that road'll be completed.
Davidson: We have no idea, Mike.
Correia: Ifwe didn't do that, you know, put that in at the beginning, then the other,
then we would be diverting the collector traffic on to this residential, non-
collector development?
Davidson: Well, initially, Amy, you wouldn't even be doing that, because until
General Quarters builds this portion of it, this would just stub right here.
Correia: So we're building...
Davidson: And, and, and when, when Steve's subdivision is building it's first house,
or it's second house, or it's tenth or twentieth house, it's probably not an
issue. It's when they get up to the eightieth house or the ninetieth house
that it becomes an issue of, all right, are we going to do something as a
city temporarily to make this connection, because there's so much traffic
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
Page 21
from Steve's subdivision accessing Nevada and Lakeside. That's a
judgment call, as to when you do that.
Elliott:
What do you anticipate now as going to be the main entrance to the
proposed General Quarters?
Davidson:
Well, the only entrance to General Quarters at this time is right here. This
street is built. (several talking) I'm drawing a blank on the name right
now.
Elliott: Gable.
Davidson: Thank you.
Correia: So then. . .
Davidson: That is the only way in and out of General Quarters at this time.
Elliott: That's a problem.
Vanderhoef: Yeah, it is!
Davidson: There are no houses constructed in General Quarters at this time.
Correia: There's no houses in that.. .but there's a street there?
Davidson: Yeah, I believe the lots are for sale. Any other questions for me?
Wilburn: That's right there where you'd walk or bike (unable to hear).
Davidson: Any other questions for me?
Gordon: All right. Well, as we've been talking about, it's my understanding that
we need to get a Conditional Zoning Agreement signed before, urn, we
can close the public hearing and uh, and vote on this project. So, but
obviously the content of what we're all talking about is what's going to be
in that Conditional Zoning Agreement, so I appreciate the give and take,
and I don't know ifit's protocol, but it's really the only way we're going
to figure this out, I guess. So my goal is that when I leave here tonight,
hopefully we've negotiated a plan so that I can corne back next meeting
with a signed Conditional Zoning Agreement that hopefully we've all
come to some conclusion on, and that we can close the public hearing and
move the project on. That would be, that would be my goal here. So,
obviously, the disagreement is on the content of the Zoning Agreement,
and it centers around the continuation of Whispering Meadows Drive,
across the Sycamore Greenway, and who's going to pay for it. It is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
Page 22
currently staffs' position that because I am upzoning this property, that I
am responsible for 100% of that cost to extend Whispering Meadows
across the neighboring property, which in this case happens to be owned
by the City. Urn, upzoning a portion of this property from RS-8 to RS-12
has not increased the monetary value of this project, but has allowed for
more diversified housing stock, and for us to enhance the natural features
that are on the site. I think we talked about that last time and won't get
into details, but it's urn, if you look at the numbers, it's not a substantial
amount oflots and it's a different kind oflot that's certainly less valuable
and thus less expensive, but it's, urn, it certainly doesn't sustain the burden
of paying for a very expensive street crossing over the stream there on the
neighboring property. I took the comments from the last meeting and
have been thinking about that, and I do have a couple of proposals that I'd
be willing to consider as far as the Conditional Zoning Agreement that I'd
like to share, and then hopefully get your feedback and hopefully you have
the same back to me. We talked about guaranteeing affordability. I'm not
sure if! really know what that means. Ifit means, you know, capping
prices or setting prices or setting payments on what the homes will be in
the development, that would be something that I could not do. I can't
guarantee something that I have no control over. Things like cost of
building materials, labor costs, fees, lending rates, or what the median
price of a home is or what the median income is in this area, urn, you
know, I have no control over those factors and thus to guarantee
something that falls within those limitations would not be possible. Urn,
to guarantee that something today that may not be built for three, four,
five, six years down the road is just not feasible, even with an inflation
factor built in, because there's just way too many variables that go into
construction. Urn, by the very nature of the design, which is smaller lots
and attached housing, both single-family are smaller and the attached
housing lots, and the location of the project, the lot and home prices will
be below the area median lot and new home prices for this area. Urn, what
I can consider is working with groups, this was brought up a little bit last
time, is working with groups such as Habitat or the Housing Authority,
excuse me - the Housing Fellowship, and make a good-faith effort to
reach out to these groups, urn, and encourage them to participate in this
project. I know these groups struggle to find affordable lots in town where
they can build their product. I don;t have an answer on how to put this in
writing, but it's certainly something I could consider and any thoughts or
ideas in that regard would be great. I believe we have shown a good track
record working with these and other groups, as well as the City, on
variable affordable housing projects, and I also strongly believe that we
have a history and continue to build market rate housing that is below the
area median prices, and have done a good job of that in the past. Another
option, if you'd prefer, this was brought up and I've thought about it and
looked at it again. I would also consider language in there to pay a portion
of the extension costs. Urn, that could work in several ways. We could
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
Page 23
build the extension ourselves during the development and then get
reimbursed for the portion that we don't have to pay for, or we could
provide a Letter of Credit to the City to guarantee our payment of the road
to be built later. So there's a couple options there. So, again, I would also
consider dialog or discussion in that regard. Urn, as I said, my goal
tonight is hopefully to come out with something that I can work with staff
and get in writing, and get signed, and get to you before next week so we
can, we can move on with this project, and so I'm open for any
suggestions or further dialog on this regard, and as Jeff said, I think pretty
much everything else has been ironed out. I know there may be some
other questions that some of you have, which I'm more than happy to
answer, but obviously the big issue is the cost of this road. (several
talking at once)
Champion: Well, I think you're going to have some more affordable housing because
the lots are going to be smaller, and I really totally support that. I know
you can't guarantee that for the obvious reasons that you stated. Urn,
because I am very much in favor of the kind of housing that's going to be
in here, I'm willing.. .willing to consider, um, splitting this road in half.
Wilburn: SO/50?
Champion: 50/50, uh, also I'm, I would like to see, I would like to see the woods
preserved for the public. I don't know what that costs. I have no idea. I
don't have any idea. So that's kind of where I'm at. I don't like the idea
that I'm for this, but I'm really for the housing you're going to build, but I
wonder what we do with the next developer who doesn't want to pay for a
road extension, but I guess I'll deal with that then. We also dealt with the
sewer with, urn, the area north of town, remember, getting the sewer
across the pond? We didn't cave in on that one, but I'm willing to cave in
on this because I think the town needs the kind of housing you're going to
build.
Gordon: Another issue, if I may, you talk a lot about the safety issues on Lakeside,
which is a very serious topic and something to certainly be considered, but
in the discussion, it's an issue now and it is an issue caused not by this
particular development, but by the very nature, by every development in
all the areas in that town. I mean, that street has grown over the years.
There's a school there. Kids have to cross the street whether they live in
this development or not, and.. . and while this crossing may alleviate some
traffic on Lakeside, it seems to me the Lakeside issue's a bigger issue, and
I guess we just feel it's unfair for us to have to solve that big issue
completely by ourselves, when, urn, you know, your comments reiterated
the fact that it is a bigger issue. It's not just an issue in this development -
it's an issue already, and will continue to be as things continue to develop
south, whether it's parks or safety or things like that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 24
Bailey: But we certainly don't want to exacerbate the issue. So, what portion? I
mean, Connie proposed 50/50, but is that. . .
Gordon: I guess, again, without having exact, you know, I would need a number
and then go back and take a look at it, but I was considering 25% or
looking at 25, which is a number that was thrown out last week as far as,
urn, and I don't know if it's a policy of JCCOG that, but things have been
done in the past where ifthere's a collector, or an arterial built that each
land owner would pay 25% on each side of it kind of in a new area, and
then the City would pick up 50% of it. I know that's a policy that's been
used in the past, and so that made sense to me.
Champion: Oh, you mean when there's a developer on two sides of the road.
Gordon: Right, a development on two sides of the road, and kind of into a new
area. I think maybe that was used on American Legion Road (several
talking) that may have been used there.
Wilburn: Or was it Lower West Branch Road?
Davidson: What Steve's referring to is our, the City's over-width policy. It is a
policy of JCCOG, but it's also the City's policy, where for a collector
street, 00, the developer portion representing 50% and then, uh, 25% on
each side. I think it's been pointed out to you that because General
Quarters is an approved subdivision, we don't have the ability to recover
anything from them. Basically, Steve's the only game in town right now
(laughter) for extending the road across and being able, as a condition of
the rezoning. I mean, that's.. .that's why we have the ability to do it as
part of the Conditional Zoning Agreement, but it is the over-width policy
that Steve's referring to for collectors and arterials.
Dilkes: Jeff, can you clarify then what...is the City paying any over-width costs
on this road?
Davidson: Yeah, this is a different thing than an over-width.
Dilkes: Okay.
Davidson: You know, subdividers build local streets and then dedicate them to the
City. When we have a collector or an arterial because additional width is
required by the City for the community portion of that street, it's wider
because it's used by the community for traffic circulation, we pay that
expense. So it's a little bit different deal than this.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 25
Vanderhoef: Uh, Steve, tell me about your homeowner association that will be there for
those open spaces.
Gordon: The open space would be privately owned, so it would have to be part of a
homeowner's association and deeded to that association, which
would.. . each member, each lot or unit within that subdivision would be a
member of, and they would have ownership of that open space area. If the
City doesn't take open space, it has to be.. . somebody has to have
ownership of it long term, so that's typically the way it's done.
Vanderhoef: Even the wetlands and so forth?
Gordon: Yes, both... both Outlots A and B would be part of an association, and
owned by that association, common ownership.
Vanderhoef: So the treed section is just adding a little bit more to the homeowner
association. There's already one that's going to be required for the
development anyway.
Gordon: There... yeah, Outlots A and B are a substantial chunk of land that would
be dedicated to the homeowner association, if three or four acres were
taken out of, I believe it's A, B...I can't see it on that map, but taken out
of that and dedicated to the City along the trail there, the wooded area, that
wouldn't affect the homeowners.
Vanderhoef: You still would have to have a homeowner. . .
Gordon: We still would have to have a homeowners association, and there'll be a
small homeowners' fee, as there typically is. Most of the time it's mainly
just for mowing, but this one would be the long-term maintenance of the
wetlands. You know, they may have to do some berms every couple
years, or part of the requirement is that we put a wetland plan together,
and the homeowners association long term would be responsible for taking
care of that.
Champion: But there would be access to that woods for the general public?
Vanderhoef: It's right beside the trail.
Gordon: Yeah, the trail, the trail leads right into the woods, yes. I mean, it'd be
private property, but yes, there's no fences...I mean, there may an old
farm fence now, but that would be taken out. There really wouldn't be
public access to the wetlands, other than by people in this development. I
mean, there is some open space there. I guess you could walk along the
sidewalk and access those, but... there's no park, I mean. ..
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 26
Elliott: I have a couple observations, and one is that I would certainly like the
wooded area. I'm very familiar with that, because I walk a dog out there
quite often, and that's a really interesting wooded area. I'd like for that to
belong to the City. People, for a long time, have talked about we lack
some primitive wildlife area, and it seems to me that would be a very
natural area. It would need to be cleaned up a little bit, but I'd like to see
that. I would also agree with King Solomon and Connie that, you're in
good company Connie, that at least a 50/50 split on bridging the greenway
would be appropriate, and third, I think there are some people here who
will have something to say about it later, but I think a real difficult
situation is going to be Gable Street being the main access to General
Quarters. I'm very familiar with that area, and that's, that's disturbing to
me.
Wilburn: Question for Eleanor. Dh, I doubt that you have this with you. I'm trying
to think.. .made a comment about good-faith effort in terms of working
with some of the non-profit, affordable housing groups in town.
Gordon: Uh-huh.
Wilburn: Do you recall kind of the tone of the language in the, um, arrangement
with Plaza Towers about, there was some good-faith effort in terms of
grocery space there. Did we quantify that or was that kind of a. . .
Dilkes: No, I think it was just best efforts or something to that effect.
Wilburn: So that's something that's feasible in...
Dilkes: Difficult to measure, but it certainly is something people put in agreements
when they want it memorialized somehow.
Champion: Especially if you're in Iowa. (laughter and several talking)
Dilkes: Could certainly write it.
Elliott: The question, do we have anything that guarantees owner occupancy on
these lower income housing?
Dilkes: No.
Elliott: We, we can...we would be constrained from doing that? We could not
zone an area that would, that would mandate that. . . we have townhouses
that are going up, what's to inhibit someone from going in and buying up
maybe five or six townhouses and renting them, because I'm sure that
people would much prefer having owner-occupied housing there than
rental housing. But we have nothing,. .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 27
Dilkes: No, we don't.
Elliott: Okay.
Champion: The homeowners association can have rules and regulations like that
though, can't they?
Gordon: I don't know how, if you can do, if you can restrict that much legally or
not. I know that'd be pretty restrictive.
Vanderhoef: I would like an assessment of the viability of those woods, and what the
cost is for clean up and maintenance of that. I'm still inclined to think we
need a play space. The woods aren't going to go away, whether they're
owned by the City or not.
Gordon: Right.
Vanderhoef: And, uh, I heard a comment from a couple of people who were not experts
to say that primarily there are a lot of junk trees in there that are not long-
term healthy trees, and before we accept them, uh, if we accept them, I
need to know pretty sure what's in there, and what the cost is. Parks and
Rec without a complete assessment made the assumption that it was going
to be very, very costly.
Wilburn: Well, it may also depend on the lens that Parks and Rec may be looking at,
and just kind of hearing what he may be implying to, um, there are
different benefits, as Bob was implying, not necessarily having a quote,
unquote in the area, but an example of usefulness of wildlife in an area
like this, since it's so close to the greenway that we have there - ifbats
were living in bat houses out there that someone had, like we have around
City Park, then those bats would be eating mosquitoes that wouldn't be
pestering folks living in some of the dwellings there, but that's just an
example, and so just looking at it from that point of view would require
less quote, unquote clearing up and cleaning up of the area, so I think it
would really be on the City to have to define what's our expectation of
cleaning up so that you could even answer that.
Gordon: It's truly a natural area. It hasn't, I don't believe it's been anything done
with it for years and years and years. (several talking at once)
Dilkes: Can I suggest that we don't have to resolve the open.. .the neighborhood
open space issue tonight. Ifthere's information that you want and, uh, that
Steve can look into about what cleanup the City is interested in, etc., that's
something that we can resolve at the platting stage. The issue that we
need to decide tonight in order to move this forward is the road.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
Wilburn:
Dilkes:
Wilburn:
Gordon:
Wilburn:
Terrell:
Wilburn:
Page 28
(unable to hear clearly)
And so I think we need to hear from anybody else who needs, who wants
to speak. Get your Ex Parte conversations disclosed and try and get that
issue resolved.
All right.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak at the public hearing on this
issue?
Hi, my name's Dan Terrell, and I live at 133 Stanwyck Drive in Iowa
City, and we had talked about this with a few of the neighbors and that,
and we're real concerned, both the access point down here at the bottom,
which where you come across on, which is right here, that leads up...I live
right in this cul-de-sac here which is Stanwyck. I live around the comer.
My backyard faces Sycamore. The only thoroughfare for this entire
subdivision here is right there, Gable. Runs right up through our
neighborhood. Granted there's no houses there right now, but as they
build up, the only access, because this is a cul-de-sac over here by
Sycamore. These entire houses, all along here, have to go out right here.
There's 51 kids in our neighborhood, with the majority of 'ern under 12,
up here in Stanwyck, which is a lot of kids. They play in the streets on the
cul-de-sac and that, and I know Lakeside is a problem with the kids, but
also up here at Stanwyck, there's kids everywhere. 51 of 'em in that cul-
de-sac. If this is allowed to corne in up through here, I'm afraid that this
road here, before it's done to Sycamore, if they do this here, everyone in
that subdivisions going to come right up through our neighborhood. It's
not a good thing. If you continue this out to Sycamore, last winter - my
house sits right here. My backyard backs up to Sycamore, and I walk
them trails all the time. These ditches along here, there were four cars in
there last winter that sat like this. They're six-feet deep. If you channel
all that traffic out there before you fix Sycamore, any time...I mean, it's a
blacktop road from Lakeside south to the soccer parks. If you channel all
that traffic out there before that road's fixed, I mean, it's.. .plus all the new
subdivisions down here so the south that's buildin', also funnel onto that
road, which is going to create a traffic nightmare. I mean, any of you have
ever been out there on a Saturday morning going to the soccer fields, make
Kinnick Stadium look like no traffic at all. I mean (laughter) up and down
and up and down until 12, 1,2:00 in the afternoon.
Steve, what.. .um, where is that project? Okay. The question, the question
you raised about that road developing, that's a capital project.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 29
Terrell: Yeah, how 10ng...1 just, you know, was curious.
Wilburn: I was going to get an answer. . .
Davidson: I think Sycamore reconstruction, I believe, he can confirm it, but I believe
that's in the five-year CIP budget now. It's in a year that's out there a
little ways, but the project to take it down to the City limits, I think, is in
there which should fix that part.
Terrell: Okay. Because originally it was in the five-year plan when I built my
house in 98.
Vanderhoef: And it has been moved out.
Terrell: It has been moved out, yeah, yeah.
Vanderhoef: Again, and again, for other projects.
Terrell: We're more concerned about this coming into our neighborhood, right
here, and so, not only that, but if that road goes through, it's going to have
to cross the bike trail here, and the bike trail here, because that trail comes
right along here. So not only is the traffic going to cross the bike trail
there, it's also going to cross it down here. So, just a couple of heads up
for you, as far as safety and the kids in our neighborhood also will be
affected by this.
Wilburn: Appreciate your comments.
Terrell: Thank you.
Atkins: We do have it in our five-year plan from Bums to the City limits, $2.5
million, Fiscal 09. So.. . (several talking).. . about this coming construction
season should be the next one.
Wilburn: Okay. Anyone else care to speak to the public hearing on this item, these
items? Any other Council Members have any Ex Parte communications
that they need to disclose at this time?
Elliott: I do. The gentleman who just spoke is partner of my daughter, and he and
I walk a friend of ours from that property all the time, a 4- footed friend,
Roscoe. So I also went out to the property withKarin a couple weeks ago.
We looked it over, and as I said earlier, and I think Dan reinforced it, my
real concern is the fact that, to me, the first time I saw Stanwyck, I
thought, I don't understand why it's there, because it appears to be a self-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
Page 30
contained unit with no logical, urn, way to run anything through this, and
it doesn't stand to logic that you would run. . .
O'Donnell: Bob, when you saw what? I didn't hear...
Elliott: Stanwyck, Stanwyck is a self-contained oval that is accessed only by a
very short street from Lakeside, and then to run traffic through Stanwyck,
and into General Quarters and anything else is really a total disservice.
You think there are problems on Lakeside, I think the problems on
Stanwyck are, are more, so...
Champion: That lower part's not even developed yet though, so it's not an immediate
problem.
Correia: So I guess, I guess. ..are you done?
Elliott: Am I done? I'm done ranting! (laughter)
Correia: All my Ex Parte has been disclosed by others. (laughter) .. . and I had a
conversation about cul-de-sac, collector. I talked with Jeff, um, yesterday
and then a little bit today about some of the issues - what are we, how
much more density, the issue with the collector, that sort of thing, urn.. .so
if.. .if, so we're proposing or we're requesting that the street be built, but
would be a dead-end, until the development might occur at Gable, or that
we would put a connection into this Stanwyck until that's developed? I
mean, I, there were a couple things that were said.
Davidson: Present time, it would be a dead-end, right there. It would then be
Council's option with subsequent planning of General Quarters. I mean,
logically the next, the next extension of General Quarters would likely
involve this connection. You could require it at that time, or you could
require it not to be constructed at that time by virtue of your control over
the platting of this property.
Champion: But we probably want it constructed, so we can get that other road out to
Sycamore.
Davidson: That would be, and as I said earlier, you could also require a temporary
connection out to Sycamore, to alleviate some of the concerns of the
previous people.
Correia: Because 1...it doesn't seem like it's at all a good idea to connect a
collector to Stanwyck, whether it's temporary until another street. I mean,
it's not a collector street, urn.. . (several talking).. .thought about that...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 31
Elliott: Yes, everything, Connie, going in there would have to go through Gable at
the present time, and Gable comes off of Stanwyck, so they'd have to. . .
Correia: It's right here. You'd have to go in to Gable. You have to go around
Stanwyck, out Lombard to make that.. .so you'd have to go through this
neighborhood, which is not built as a connector, which would actually be a
little bit of hassle. I think people would use Lakeside anyway, and I...I
think you may see people using Lakeside from this neighborhood, because
they're going to the school because that...
Champion: Well, that can be dealt with when that plot is dealt with, because then you
might require them to finish that road, so they are going in on the new
road. That's not plotted at all, so that road is just on paper.
Correia: Well, I understand that.
Champion: But you could require that that road be finished then, because.. .so there is
a collector going in and out of that neighborhood.
Correia: Yes, at some time in the future.
Champion: Yes, but what we're talking about today doesn't affect that at all.
Correia: So we're saying, we're requiring it to be built to a dead-end, until this
other development goes through? (several talking) We're not going to, at
all, consider going through Gable?
Champion: No, no!
Bailey: We could do that. I mean, we could phase it in a way that we think is
more appropriate (several talking).
Champion: I don't know where that came from.
Correia: We've been talking about that.
Champion: I know. I don't see how it would happen when it's not even plotted.
Correia: Gable's there.
Champion: Yeah, Gable is there, but the area that you're saying it's going to go to is
not even plotted.
Elliott: It's not...I don't know if it's plotted. You're talking about General
Quarters?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 32
Champion: Right.
Elliott: Yeah. It's.. .the streets in, the paving's in. Everything's there. All they
need to do is sell the lots and build.
Champion: I'm confused about where",
Correia: I think I'm confused. . .
Davidson: All of General Quarters is preliminary platted. It is not. . .
Champion: Oh, okay.
Davidson: . . .it is not final plat. The only thing final platted is what you see right
here.
Wilburn: Well, related to.. .related to the item, and we can't close the public hearing
without a signed CZA. Connie, you had put out, as proposed, it has the
developer paying the full amount. Connie put out the suggestion earlier
for a 50/50 split. Urn, can we start with that, just to get an idea. That
would be something that I would be supportive of.
Bailey: I would support that.
Wilburn: That's three.
Vanderhoef: I would, if we don't accept the wooded land. I'm serious!
O'Donnell: Well, let's go down and survey the trees, and see...
Wilburn: Is there a fourth Member...
Elliott: Yes, uh, I would like to know, as a part of that, who would pay for, if we
extend the road to, um, Sycamore, as you said gravel it and make it
temporary entrance/exit, who would pay for that? City?
Davidson: In the absence of anything else being negotiated, the City.
Elliott: Okay.
Davidson: And that would have to be worked out with a private property owner, of
course, as well.
Elliott: Yeah. I just, to me, I think that's the least I would do to approve this, is
have at least that as a temporary entrance/exit into that area, so not
everything goes through Gable. I'm in favor of 50/50 split.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 33
Wilburn: That's four that are in favor of a 50/50 split. Did you want to continue
that thought, Mike, or?
O'Donnell: Well, there's four in favor of 50/50. I wasn't. I was in favor of.. . doesn't
matter. I was in favor of each developer paying 25 and the City paying
50.
Elliott: But we can't do that.
O'Donnell: Well, I think we can do that, can't we?
Dilkes: No, we can't. We have no mechanism to require another developer to pay
that 25%.
Wilburn: Amy, what were you going to say?
Correia: I just, we brought up Gable again, so (laughter) are we...
Wilburn: At this point, it stops right after it crosses the greenway, right there.
Correia: So it won't be connected to Gable?
Wilburn: Not at this time.
Correia: Are we planning to have it. . .
Wilburn: The future Council will make that determination...
Correia: .. .but not this time, okay, fine.
Wilburn: Um...I guess...
Davidson: The developer's indicated that's the only unresolved issue. We will
resolve the CZA. We will work out having that signed with the developer.
Next meeting you can close the hearing, and...
Champion: I want that little paragraph in there.
Elliott: Did we see a nod?
Champion: Yes. What'd you call it?
Dilkes: You want the best efforts paragraph on...
Champion: Yeah, I mean, I think. . .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d Page 34
Davidson: .. . affordable housing, okay.
Wilburn: And working with non-profits,
Elliott: Was that a nod? Affirmative? (unable to hear person in audience)
Gordon: . . .it was meant to be as a one or another suggestion, urn, and uh, so
we'll...1 guess, my understanding is that I'll work out with staff the CZA,
I'll sign it, and then you'll have a chance to review it, and decide if you
approve it or not.
Champion: Maybe you misunderstood my best effort sentence. My best effort
sentence was that housing would be affordable. That's my best effort.
Gordon: Yeah, I mean, we've.. .as I've said, we've always worked with those
groups on trying to sell them lots, and if, I can't imagine ifthey want to
buy a lot we're not going to sell it to them. So...
Wilburn: Let me add this too...I think what Connie is saying, I was one of those
willing to consider making more stringent language in the CZA related to
affordability. I've reconsidered that, given your history of trying to work
with groups in the existing area, so urn. . .
Gordon: I mean, I think I have an understanding of what you would like to see, or
at least a majority of you would like to see.
Wilburn: Okay, and when that comes back to us, we do have the, Council does have
the option should they chose to do so of collapsing the ordinance from
three down to two readings. So.. . okay.
Gordon: All right, thanks!
Champion: Thanks!
Wilburn: Urn.. . (several talking)
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Elliott: Excuse me, was that all right for me to be one of the four in favor of that,
because I had expressed a concern earlier about something that involved
my daughter?
Wilburn: He's asking ifhe has a conflict of interest.
Champion: No.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#4c & d
Wilburn:
Dilkes:
Wilburn:
Bailey:
Wilburn:
Davidson:
Wilburn:
Karr:
Wilburn:
Page 35
Does he have a legal conflict of. . .
No, I don't believe so.
Do not have a legal conflict of interest. Urn, it's been moved by
Vanderhoef to continue the public hearing until the 24th of July...
Second.
.. . and seconded by Bailey. Were you going to add something, Jeff?
No.
Okay.
And this is for both c) and d)?
Both items, yes. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Carries
7-0.
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
(DEFERRED FROM 6/19)
Bailey: Move first consideration.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: Been moved by Bailey, seconded by Vanderhoef to, urn, to defer both
until the 24t\ as well. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign.
Carries 7-0. Let's take a ten-minute break.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#5 Page 36
ITEM 5 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ENTITLED
"ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES" TO PROHIBIT POSSESSION OF
OPEN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.
(FIRST CONSIDERATION)
O'Donnell: Move first consideration.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell.
Champion: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Correia: Can you just explain what we're doing?
Wilburn: This is clarifying language in the existing City Code. The original intent
of the ordinance is to make it illegal to possess open alcoholic beverage
containers, correct? It's a little unclear at this...
Dilkes: We just discovered a glitch in our ordinance that didn't, didn't require the
alcohol to be unsealed or unopened, and so we thought we'd better correct
that.
Wilburn: So as someone pointed out last night, you can carry the bottle of wine
unopened in your bicycle basket. Correct?
Dilkes: Right.
Champion: Or backpack.
Wilburn: Okay.
Champion: Or trunk!
Wilburn: Discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#6 Page 37
ITEM 6 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE
CITY CODE, ENTITLED "USE OF PUBLIC WAYS AND
PROPERTY," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL USE OF
SIDEWALKS," SECTION 4, ENTITLED "TEMPORARY USE OF
SIDEWALK PERMITS" TO INCREASE THE DURATION OF THE
TEMPORARY SIDEWALK PERMITS FROM THREE (3) DAYS
TO FOUR (4) DAYS. (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Bailey: I move that the rule requiring that ordinances must be considered and
voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at
which it is to be finally passed be suspended; that the second consideration
and vote be waived, and the ordinance be voted on for final passage at this
time.
V anderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: It's been moved by Bailey, seconded by Vanderhoef to expedite.
Discussion on expediting? Roll call.
Champion: Well, you better because it's.. .next week is sidewalk sales. (laughter)
Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
Bailey: I move that the ordinance be finally adopted at this time.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Correia: So the sidewalk sales are next.. .when?
Champion: Not this coming week, but next week. Whatever that is.
Correia: 20th, 21 st. Great.
Wilburn: One of the reasons I love having you up here, Connie! (laughter) Roll
call. Item carries 7-0. Let the sidewalk days begin!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#7 Page 38
ITEM 7 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, ENTITLED
"POLICE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED
"MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES," BY ADDING A NEW SECTION
9, ENTITLED "AMATEUR FIGHTING AND BOXING" TO
PROHIBIT AMATEUR FIGHTING AND BOXING AT
ESTABLISHMENTS THAT ARE LICENSED TO SERVE
ALCOHOL. (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Champion: Move second consideration.
O'Donnell: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Did you
want to.. .please state your name.
Pollack: Hello, my name is Adam Pollack. Put my little sticker here. I'm here
today to advocate an amendment to this law, this proposed law. Um, just
by way of background, I'm a coach of the Iowa City Boxing Club. I'm
also Vice Chair of the USA Boxing's National Judicial Committee, that
decides grievances throughout the nation. Urn, my opposition to the law
as currently drafted is that it is overbroad. It essentially throws the baby
out with the bathwater. I believe that the stated intention and purpose of
this law is to regulate, or to actually not allow fighting that is umegulated
in an establishment that sells alcohol. The concern being that when you
have fighting in an establishment that sells alcohol, and it's not subject to
any type of regulations whatsoever, that that's a safety issue, and I
understand the Council's purpose there. The problem is that the law, as
drafted, also inadvertently covers amateur boxing, true and legitimate
amateur boxing that is in fact sanctioned and regulated. The Union fight
nights, they're calling themselves amateur, but they're not amateur.
They're not amateur as sanctioned and regulated and recognized by USA
Boxing. USA Boxing is the nationally recognized, national governing
body of amateur boxing in America. What's going on at the Union fight
night is not true amateur boxing. It's not regulated, it's not sanctioned.
And therefore, I think that's why once these fight nights were happening
that Council was concerned and brought forth this legislation, but the
problem is that they called themselves amateur and I think that led to this
law then saying anything that's amateur cannot be in an establishment that
sells alcohol, but they're not really amateur, and so what the Council
really is trying, I think, regulate is boxing, or really what.. .they're not
really doing boxing. They're doing what you call mixed martial arts, and
by trying to cover what they're doing out ofthat concern, the statute got
drafted to say amateur boxing, but what they're doing isn't really amateur
boxing! And let me give you an example. USA Boxing, the national
governing body for boxing, has a rule book. All right? Here it is. It's
pretty thick. There's lot of pages in this. All right? There's lots of rules
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#7
Page 39
and regulations and certifications and safety rules. The Union fight night
doesn't follow any of those! It's not sanctioned by USA Boxing because
it's not boxing. And, in fact, USA Boxing has a rule in its rule book that
says this: a boxer cannot participate in an unsanctioned boxing contest or
tournament, or in a tough-man, wild-man, bar room brawl, or any similar
competition that is never sanctioned by USA Boxing Incorporated, either
before or during the boxer's membership in the USA Boxing. USA
Boxing specifically bars participation in these type of Union fight nights.
In fact, if you participate in a Union fight night, you are no longer
considered an amateur by USA Boxing, can never participate in a USA
Boxing sanctioned event again! Or for the first time, for that matter!
Now, the point s, when you're trying to regulate these Union fight nights,
you're inadvertently, by using the word amateur, you're
actually.. . accidentally regulating USA Boxing, which is sanctioned and
regulated. We do have rules. We do. . . the... USA Boxing is the national
governing body recognized by the United States Olympic Committee.
United States Olympic Committee was formed pursuant to the Ted
Stevens Amateur and Olympic Sports Act. That gives, that created the
USOC, the United States Olympic Committee, which then can designate
national governing bodies for various amateur sports throughout America.
And all of these amateur sports are typically Olympic-recognized sports,
as is boxing. USA Boxing then has what is called "local boxing
committees." Iowa has a local boxing committee called Iowa Amateur
Boxing. In fact, the State ofIowa recognizes Iowa Amateur Boxing.
There's a statute called 90A.l 0 that taxes professional boxing in Iowa, and
that the tax from that then goes to a fund that is disseminated to amateur
boxing in Iowa, and there's a grant advisory committee that then advises
the State Athletic Commissioner as to how that money should be
distributed. Now, on the committee are members from both the Iowa
Golden Gloves, and Iowa Amateur Boxing. The reason why I say that is,
that gives you a sense that this is something that's legitimate. It's
recognized by the State of Iowa. The people from Iowa Amateur Boxing
have a, have a board. There's a president, there's a committee, there's
sanctions, there's sanctions issued, there's certifications for the officials,
there's a very rigorous, regulatory body that is overseeing true amateur
boxing in America, and in Iowa, and I don't feel that true amateur boxing
should now be covered by this law because of what they did at the Union,
and that's essentially why this came about. Amateur boxing's been going
on n Iowa for, you know, many decades, but there's been no problem with
this in Iowa City, until the Union did what they did, because they did
something that was unsanctioned, unregulated, without any rules, without
any safety regulations whatsoever, but I don't know want true amateur
boxing now to get covered by this rule, and that's what's inadvertently
going to happen. Um, let me give you an example. If I want to do a...an
amateur boxing show say at the Sheraton, or at a hotel that serves alcohol,
in their ballroom, and why now should I not be able to do that, when we're
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#7
Page 40
going to have officials that are true sanctioned, certified officials. We're
going to be pursuant, acting pursuant to a rule book, pursuant to Iowa
Amateur Boxing's regulations, pursuant to USA Boxing's regulations.
The committee that I'm sitting on is a committee where if you violate
those rules and regulations, you can be brought up on charges and you can
be banned or suspended. So, this is the type of organization that's well-
run and well-regulated, and that is the concern that the City Council had
with this fight night, that it wasn't regulated. Now, for example, can
professional boxing happen in a place where there's alcohol served? Yes.
Why? Because it is regulated. And I would say the same logic then
therefore applies for amateur boxing - it is regulated and therefore it
should be allowed to occur in a.. . establishment that sells alcohol. Like
say hypothetically I want to do a pro-am show, where we have let's say
Emily and Katie Klinefelter are turning pro, but we also want to have
some amateur bouts too. I wouldn't be able to do it in a hotel ballroom
that sells alcohol, because of this new law. I think really the law can be
drafted to cover what the harm, or the potential harm, that this fight night
presents, without outlawing those sports or entities that are in fact
regulated and properly sanctioned, either by a sentence.. . adding a
sentence to the law that says this is not intended to include USA Boxing
sanctioned and regulated events, or perhaps better still, to simply state
what the true intention of the law is, by saying this law does not apply to
those sports which are sanctioned and regulated, either by the State of
Iowa, or a recognized national governing body by the United States
Olympic Committee, and is conducted pursuant to the regulations.. .the
rules and regulations of that national governing body. If you simply put
that statement in there, you're going to still get rid of exactly what you're
trying to get rid of, because they're not pursuant to a national governing
body. There's no such thing as amateur MMA. There's no national
governing body for MMA because it's not an Olympic sport, and.. . and
it's not regulated by the State oflowa. So they're still not going to be able
to do their thing. Now, let's say hypothetically down the line they do get
regulated by the State oflowa. Now you don't have to come back and
revisit the issue, because it simply says, this law is not intended to cover
something that's regulated and sanctioned by the State oflowa, or a
national governing body. So therefore they would now fall into the
savings clause, the exception, if they in fact they were regulated by the
State oflowa. And so you don't have to revisit the issue, so what I'm
saying is, just, if you have a savings clause for something that really is
regulated and sanctioned, then that way you don't banish
other. . .legitimate sports like USA Boxing, which never in a million years
would regulate what's going on at the Union. I don't think the Union
would want USA Boxing to regulate them, because our regulations are so
strict and stringent, that it would fundamentally alter the event that they're
putting on. And so. . .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#7 Page 41
Wilburn: You're going to have to wind your comments up.
Pollack: I'd like to answer any questions that you may have, because probably
boxing and fighting is probably something new to a lot of you, and I could
probably answer a lot of your questions.
Wilburn: I wanted to actually just clarify something that was stated. If the State of
Iowa regulates something, then that preempts, then presumably that would
preempt local, or is that not necessarily the case? If the State ofIowa were
to.. .
Dilkes: It would depend. Urn, you can't just say because they have some
regulation that there would be preemption. I'd be hesitant to amend it,
urn, by saying that ifit's regulated by the State ofIowa because urn, there
is some minor regulation of amateur boxing in the State regulations, but so
I think if you want to go in that direction, we should simply say it doesn't
cover, amateur boxing does not include that which is sanctioned by USA
Boxing. So...
Champion: Well, I think he makes a valid point, and I'm willing to consider some
kind of clause. I don't know how to word it.
Dilkes: I don't think you have to word it. You just say you don't want this to
cover, um, events that are sanctioned by USA Boxing. We can come up
with that language if you want to amend it on the floor you can do that.
Champion: It can be a simple amendment.
Dilkes: Yeah.
Wilburn: How many...
Vanderhoef: I would offer that amendment.
Champion: I'll second it.
Vanderhoef: Thank you.
Wilburn: It's been moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Champion to amend it by
saying that it does not include USA sanctioned.
Champion: You wrote the letter, right?
Elliott: Wording that Eleanor would approve. (several talking at once)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#7
Wilburn:
Pollack:
Wilburn:
Pollack:
Wilburn:
Pollack:
Elliott:
Pollack:
Page 42
I've got a question for you, discussion. How many events have you had at
the Sheraton?
Zero,
How many have you had at the Iowa City Rec Center?
Two.
Okay. Urn, and so there are venues that are, or can you paint a picture of
the other types of venues that you've had in the Iowa City area?
The Rec Center's the only place that I've actually held an amateur boxing
event at, and I guess my point would be that I love the Rec Center, but I
don't want to be...I don't want to say the word stuck, but I don't want to
be forced to only use the Rec Center and nothing else. Like, what if
there's another opportunity that comes up. Let's say the Rec Center's
booked, or let's say another organization in Iowa City - a hotel or place
with a bar wants us to be there, and now I don't want to be stuck where
I'm like, oh no, you guys sell alcohol there - I can't do it! You know,
or...I mean, typically for pro shows you don't do them at a rec center.
You do them like at a hotel ballroom or something, and if I want to do a
pro-am, because it's hard to get a lot of bouts in Iowa. So if you want to
do the Klinefelter sisters pro debut, but we're also going to through in
some amateur bouts to fill out the card so the public gets their money's
worth, you want to be able to have that, and not be circumscribed by just,
by the fact that that place happened to have an alcohol license. So, I
mean, you're basically, you know, sticking me into one spot basically.
I guess I don't, excuse me, but I don't see anything wrong with having
athletic events in athletic facilities. I don't see anything in the item as it
currently stands that either inhibits or prohibits you from holding boxing
matches in any location or facility, that we would normally think of to go
to see a boxing match. There's gyms, there's outdoor facilities. I don't
know why you.. .we don't have softball games or baseball games or
football games or basketball games or polo games or badminton games or
anything in places that are licensed to serve liquor. Why must boxing be?
What I'd like to say to that is, I don't think that amateur boxing should be
penalized by what the Union did, and that's exactly why this law is put
forth. No one put forth this law for decades before the Union did what
they did. So, before that, we could have had it in the Sheraton and, or
another facility and it would have been fine and nobody would have
brought this law up, because it would have been a properly conducted
event, with rules, with safety rules, and regulations. That's not what they
did, and that's why this law carne about. So I'm saying why should we be
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#7
Page 43
penalized and circumscribed and limited in the venues that we can put our
property conducted event by what they did?
Wilburn: Are there any other questions before the Council discuss, deliberate
amongst ourselves?
Vanderhoef: I'll just ask so that it's out on the table. What kind of insurance do the
participants have to have on their own, and USA Boxing?
Pollack: USA Boxing does have insurance. In fact, that's actually the biggest
expense of USA Boxing every year. I think they have to pay something
like $2 million a year for their insurance policy, that's what the majority of
all the fees go towards paying. USA Boxing requires amateur boxers to
pay, uh, $35.00, 1 believe it is, a year, plus clubs pay...1 pay $100.00 fee a
year for my club. I also pay somewhere around $60.00 as a coach to be
licensed, and then they also receive some federal funding through the
United States Olympic Committee, which also helps them out and other
avenues, so yeah, there's definite insurance coverage. I mean, we're
talking legitimate. I'd be happy to show you the rule book. 1 mean,
there's strict weight divisions and strict glove requirements and
strict. . .how you match people up, and I would argue to you that the reason
why the Union didn't ever get a sanction from USA Boxing is 'cause, like
I said, that would fundamentally change the event they were doing. They
don't want a real amateur boxing show, because it wouldn't give them the
flavor of what they're seeking, because we're, I mean, we're real strict in
Iowa and throughout the nation, quite frankly, and uh, the.. . and I also
want to say that really they're not really doing boxing. It's more mixed
martial arts. You know, it's not truly boxing. And by saying amateur
boxing, it's hurting boxing when it's really this mixed martial arts that,
that was going on there, and sometimes they do a boxing-like event, but
it's not true amateur boxing, according to the rules of USA Boxing. And
if you do that, without USA Boxing sanction, you are no longer an
amateur boxer according to USA Boxing. If you ever have any Olympic
dreams of being an Olympic boxer, they're gone!
Champion: Well, I think Olympic boxing is a sanctioned sport, and...
Wilburn: I'm sorry, hold on a second. Any other questions before Council
deliberates, just so he can sit down.
Champion: I'm sorry.
O'Donnell: Yeah, I've got a question. Would you consider putting on an event in
Union Bar? Amateur boxing night?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
~ h~M
Pollack: I haven't, because that's just not my personal.. .not the message I want to
send. Um, I don't really...
O'Donnell: Conceivably with this though, we could, we could say that mixed martial
arts, or amateurs, or whatever they are could not do it, but you could. Is
that right?
Pollack: What I'm, what I'm suggesting is that I think the lady over here, Council
Person over here suggested, was simply to say, urn, this law is not
intended to cover USA Boxing Incorporated sanctioned and regulated
events, because USA Boxing is a nationally, national governing body, it's
recognized by the United States Olympic Committee, so.. .or you could
say this law is not intended to cover a sport that is recognized by the
United States Olympic Committee, and sanctioned and regulated to that
organization's rules. Which of course then, you still wouldn't be able to
have the Union fight night, because there's no sport that's recognized by
the Olympics that they're doing. It's not, you know, there's no such sport.
O'Donnell: We couldn't have the Union fight night, but we could have amateur
boxing night?
Pollack: You technically could. However, given that I am the only coach in Iowa
City, that's a USA Boxing coach, and I'm the only club also. I'mjust
telling you from my personal viewpoint, that's not something that's going
to happen. You know, like I said, I've been doing this for seven years
now, and the only place I put it on was the Rec Center, but I'm just saying
hypothetically, I don't feel that I should be punished or penalized by what
they did, and I don't really think I will put it ever on the Union, but I'm
thinking, like I said, I'm thinking more along the lines of a hotel ballroom,
or something, you know, I don't want to think about the parade of
potential horribles that later on I have to say, dam, I can't do this now
because of this law.
Wilburn: Thank you. Discussion?
Correia: I feel like when we've had the conversations about this, the Union fight
night and the mixed martial arts, that the issue that we kept talking about
was the lack of regulation, that those events were not regulated events and
we didn't want to get into regulating those events and putting any type of
rules, because we didn't want to get into that, but that.. ..that what we're
hearing here is that there are regulated events that are amateur boxing, um,
that are recognized by the US Olympic Committee and I think that may
meet what the concerns that we had.
Bailey: But Mike makes a valid point. I mean, because our concerns didn't end
with regulation. It also ended with environment, or they also included
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#7
Page 45
environment, and having those kinds of events in an environment where
alcohol was prevalent. I mean, so what we're basically saying is even if
somebody who's consuming alcohol couldn't necessarily get into the ring,
there's alcohol, a lot of alcohol potentially, being consumed, and it's an
environment that we're also supporting, and I think that we have to take
that into consideration because that was part of our original concern.
Correia: And I guess my.. .my, when we were talking about the environment in that
situation, for me, the concern was related to the potential, and what we
heard is that folks that had consumed alcohol were then going in the ring.
I mean, that's what I was. . .
Bailey: Well, see, I heard broader. I heard that, you know, whether true or not,
you know, taking it out into the streets and sort of that, urn,
confrontational atmosphere, and no, I have nothing against boxing. Let's
just go on the record with that, but I think that that's something that should
merit our consideration, whether, I mean, as we think about this change.
Elliott: Well, I don't see anything wrong with having athletic sporting events in
areas where you expect to see athletic sporting events. There are gyms,
there are outdoors, there are ball fields. There are any number of places
where you can hold it, and I'm in favor of the item as it exists at the
present time.
O'Donnell: I've got one more question.
Pollack: May I briefly respond to that?
Wilburn: I allowed you more than five minutes to comment. I allowed Council to
question, and I think you've made your point. We need....
Pollack: I'd like to speak to that very briefly.
Wilburn: .. .we have other items that we have to get to tonight, and I think you have
made your intentions clear tonight, and through your correspondence.
So.. .I'm going to say, no, if you wish at this time. Okay. I allowed you
more than five minutes to address the Council. I allowed Council to ask
questions, and you elaborated on the questions. It's time now for Council
to discuss and move on, because we have other items on tonight's agenda
that are equally as important as your concern. I thank you for coming
forward tonight. Okay? Thank you.
O'Donnell: Okay, is this Council discussion? If Connie and Dee wanted to fight each
other, and we booked them down at the (laughter and several talking)...I
don't know how I'd bet! But if they wanted to fight each other, and they
went into an amateur setting, does that mean they've declared themselves
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#7
Page 46
an amateur? And neither of them could fight in the Olympics from that
point forward? Isn't that what I understand.
Correia: My understanding is that somebody is an amateur boxer that is recognized
by the USA Olympic Committee, which they have to belong, they have to
pay a fee, they have to have insurance, they have to follow all of that. If
that athlete goes to a fight night and fights in that ring, they are no longer
able to be a member of USA Boxing to one day fight...
O'Donnell: I was assuming Connie was already a professional. (laughter)
Bailey: But they can participate in a sanctioned event at that venue, and still
maintain their status.
Wilburn: As long as the follow the, as long as they follow all the other reg.. .rules
and regulations and aren't disqualified on site. Any other comments by
Council? I agree with Regenia. A primary concern that I had was, urn, if
that type of activity were to happen, it should be regulated and not by the
City Council, and urn, but there was broader discussion and concern
expressed to us by the public, uh, some about the activity about boxing
itself, and I don't necessarily have that concern, but Regenia's right about
the environment related to alcohol. I also look at just opportunities. I, urn,
occasionally have attended boxing matches, primarily in the State of
Illinois, and, you know, I'm saying this as like I said, I'm the son of a
amateur and professional fighter who went on to coach, and I helped him
train some of his fighters, but in terms of opportunity, if we were
eliminating, ifthere weren't other opportunities, then I might be willing to
modify the ordinance as we have it written, but as was stated, there's the
Rec Center. There is the University. There's City Park. I've attended
events in Illinois at armories, schools, county fairgrounds, urn, so in my
opinion, there are other opportunities that would be available for amateur
fighting in the community, so I'm willing to consider, to continue with it
as, as is, but there, right now there is an amendment, there's a motion on
the floor to amend it by including that, exclusion of USA sanctioned
boxing. Any...
Elliott: I agree with the Mayor. When I was writing sports, I never, there never
seemed to be lacking of space for golden gloves. Plenty of opportunities.
Correia: I have a question. So let's say, um, USA Boxing wanted to have a fight in
the ballroom of the Sheraton. The Sheraton has a liquor license, but in the
ballroom they wouldn't be serving alcohol. Would that be prohibited
under this ordinance?
Dilkes: Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
~ P~~
Champion: Can they get special exceptions? Like didn't we allow special exceptions
for something in the park, by the fire department or something?
Dilkes: Well, we'd have to write in into the ordinance. I think at one point during
your discussions, you thought about having, getting some kind of permit,
which would allow that to happen, in a bar, if they agreed not to sell any
alcohol or have any alcohol sold, or.. . and I think you rejected that idea.
So...it applies to the whole establishment that's licensed.
Wilburn: That was brought up because there was something similar to our underage
19. An existing liquor establishment can petition the Police Chief to
sponsor a night where no alcohol is served, and allow people who are 19
and under to be on the premises, after 10:00.
Vanderhoef: Well, I'm thinking about the athletes themselves, and if we don't amend
this, those athletes will have zero possibilities.
Elliott: Wrong! They have many possibilities.
Vanderhoef: Not the way...
Elliott: Yes! There's the Rec Center, there are ball fields. Any place!
Vanderhoef: No, no, no! The definition of amateur is the problem in the way our
ordinance is written.
Elliott: No, he can hold his boxing matches anywhere, just not in a.. ..facility.
Vanderhoef: Eleanor!
Dilkes: The only thing that this ordinance addresses is the holding of events in an
establishment that has a liquor license. It does not prohibit, for instance, it
does not prohibit fight night at the Rec Center. It does not prohibit fight
night at City Park. It prohibits.. .what it prohibits is the combination of
alcohol and the fighting.
Wilburn: All right. Any other discussion on the, uh, the motion on the floor to
amend this to include the exclusion for USA sanctioned events? Roll call.
Karr: Motion.
Wilburn: I'm sorry. All those in favor signify by saying aye. I'm going to need a
show of hands. All those in favor?
O'Donnell: What's the motion?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#7 Page 48
Wilburn: To.. .to exempt USA Boxing sanctioned events from this ordinance. Show
of hands. That's Vanderhoef, Correia, and Champion. All those opposed,
raise your hand. That's Elliott, Bailey, Wilburn, and O'Donnell. The
motion fails. We're back to the original ordinance, second consideration.
Bailey: Second consideration.
Wilburn: It's already been moved. Discussion on the main motion?
Bailey: I will be willing at some point to re-examine this, should it prove a barrier
to sanctioned events, but at this point I'm concerned about the
environment, sort of outweighed, because that was part of the discussion,
but I would certainly be willing to look at this ifbrought
back.. . opportunities are missed, but it doesn't seem like we have a lot of
boxing events in Iowa City, so um, if they increase and you're missing
opportunities, I'm sure we'll hear from you.
Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries 7-0. We do have third consideration on this item at
the meeting on the 24th.
Champion: I thought we expedited it?
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Wilburn: I need a motion to accept correspondence.
Bailey: So moved.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey.
Karr: Moved by Bailey?
Vanderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by Vanderhoef. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign.
Carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
~ p~~
ITEM 9 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE
CITY CODE, ENTITLED "USE OF PUBLIC WAYS AND
PROPERTY," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED, "COMMERCIAL USE OF
SIDEWALKS," SECTION 3, ENTITLED "USE FOR SIDEWALK
CAFES," TO ALLOW SIDEWALK CAFES TO ENCOMPASS
RAISED PLANTERS IN CITY PLAZA UNDER LIMITED
CIRCUMSTANCES. (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
O'Donnell: Move first consideration.
Bailey: Move first consideration.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Elliott: I'd like to defer this, if we could. I tried to talk to one or the other bars on
either side to see if they had any opinion, if they had any objections. I was
unable to contact Brian who owns one of the bars to the side. I'd like a
way to see what the adjacent businesses have to say. As you said last
night that the City has every right to do this, but I don't think we should
do it if the adjacent businesses don't like the idea of something in front of
theirs.
Wilburn: Moved by Elliott to.. .legal.. .moved by Elliott to defer until.. .what date?
Elliott: Next meeting.
Wilburn: The 24th of July. Is there a second? Motion dies for lack of a second.
Dilkes: I did just want to say, Bob, that as part of the already existing ordinance,
the property owners within a hundred feet have to be notified, before the
agreement comes to you for approval, which will be on the next agenda.
Elliott: You say notified... that's all you said. Notified.
Dilkes: Well, they're notified that the Council will consider the agreement at the,
at your July 24th meeting, and they will have, they have the opportunity to
make their feelings known.
Elliott: Ijust.. .I just would like to talk to the business. We went through this with
the cabs and I'd like to talk to people downtown first, but we'll go.
Wilburn: Any other discussion? Roll call. Carries 6-1, Elliott in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#10 Page 50
ITEM 10 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN GREENPLAY, LLC OF BROOMFIELD, COLORADO
AND THE CITY OF IOWA CITY FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
TO COMPLETE A COMPREHENSIVE PARKS, RECREATION
AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN.
Correia: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Correia, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Champion: We've been talking about doing this for a long time.
Vanderhoef: You're right! It's long overdue.
Bailey: And it looks like a really extensive, um, public process, and...a public
input process.
Wilburn: Just invite the public, once, uh, the firm is on board, uh, they will have
several opportunities for public input into the process. I encourage you to
participate. Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10,2007.
#11 Page 51
ITEM 11 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING FUNDING FOR
DISCERNING EYE, INC. FROM IOWA CITY'S COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO ACT AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
AND SUBMIT ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION TO THE
u.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT. (DEFERRED FROM 6/19)
Wilburn: I have a... . Item 11, I have a conflict of interest. Um, this item involves
the use of Community Development Block Grant funds and I have a
conflict of interest because I work for an organization that has received
this funding, and cannot participate in the discussions.
Bailey: (reads Item 11)
Champion: Second. Oh (laughter) I guess...
Bailey: Want to move it?
Champion: Um, I'll move the resolution.
Bailey: Moved by Champion.
O'Donnell: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Tracy is here for questions.
Elliott: We've discussed this thoroughly in Economic Development. I have a lot
of mixed emotions about this, but I will support it.
Correia: So this is supporting a downtown business that will create a job...a job
creation that's part of the requirements, correct?
Bailey: Okay. Roll call. Item carries 6-0, Wilburn abstaining due to conflict of
interest. (several talking at once)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#12 Page 52
ITEM 12 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A COMPLETE
STREETS POLICY FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 07-109.
Bailey: Move the resolution.
Correia: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Correia. Discussion?
Bailey: I think this is a much-improved ordinance.. .or resolution, and um, I think
it will be noted by the funder head alliance, which will give us some
credibility for grant seeking and bicycle-friendly community (unable to
hear), so I think this is great.
Wyatt: Well, one of the things I...
Wilburn: Uh, we need you to state your name.
Wyatt: Oh, excuse me. I'm Mark Wyatt. I'm Executive Director of the Iowa
Bicycle Coalition. I reside in North Liberty. One of the things I noted
when the Council first discussed adopting a streets' amendment is where
do you put the lines? Is that 20,25%, uh, what we're trying to change
here gives you the opportunity to discuss that as a Council and make up
your own minds when exceptions corne by. There's always that
opportunity where it may be a more expensive project for bicycle or
pedestrian component, and now Council will have the opportunity to say,
we'd rather spend more money and see that this connection happens.
Champion: Thank you.
Bailey: And I also think that by having the public discussion, the public becomes
more aware of where we are and what our commitment is, to having
complete streets, and I think that's the important, to me, the important
component of this, is that it's a public discussion, rather than decided at
staff level.
Vanderhoef: It is, and certainly just for information this is a national question. The
complete streets - we're one ofthe early ones there, but one of the things
that we need to be very vigilant on is to make sure that our state and
federal DOT's get on-board with this same kind of activity, so that we
have the connectivity that we need, and the safety we need, to expand our
routes. And this is one of the things that will be on the Steering
Committee, uh, of the National League of Cities on transportation and
infrastructure this year. Uh, we set our agenda this afternoon, and that will
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#12
Page 53
be on the top of it, and we'll have speakers in and start working on that, to
include it in the National Transportation Bill of 09.
Wyatt:
Excellent. And I think all the discussions tonight have focused around,
uh, access and mobility of our communities, and it's an important issue
that solves a lot of big problems that's in front of us.
Wilburn:
Thank you. Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#13 Page 54
ITEM 13 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS ON KIMBALL ROAD
BETWEEN N. GOVERNOR STREET AND WHITING AVENUE.
O'Donnell: Move the resolution.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell.
Bailey: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Dilkes: Can I just say, as I told the Council last night and just so it's clear for
people in the audience, this is my street, and so I'm not going to
participate in Council's discussion, and I'm going to go sit out there.
Wilburn: Welcome to my world, Eleanor! (laughter)
Vanderhoef: This is mama protecting her children. (laughter)
Yapp: John Yapp with JCCOG Transportation Planning. Anisa Gerard is ill
tonight and could not be here. She has dealt with this process with the
neighborhood. The street did qualify for traffic calming, based on the
speed and the volume of traffic. The, uh, respondents to a survey on the
neighborhood, I believe, 71 % voted in approval for the speed humps. One
issue I was told that came up just slightly under 50% of the residents
responding, but of the respondents, 71 % did recommend approval. I'm
here to answer any questions. I think there's some other people here to
provide input, as well.
Bailey: I got a call about stop signs, um, at. . . um, Whiting and Kimball, Kimball
Avenue, and Kimball Road and Kimball and Governor. Have we looked
at if those are warranted?
Yapp: We have not looked at that to my knowledge. Um, knowing a little bit
about the traffic pattern, the issue with.. .just for the audience. It's
important to only put in stop signs where they are warranted, which means
the traffic pattern is conducive to people actually stopping at the stop
signs, because there's often opposing traffic. Uh, putting stop signs on a
street where there is seldom opposing traffic, uh, can increase rear-end
collisions, and can increase incidents of people just starting to roll through
the stop signs, because they never see anybody else, which can create a
safety issue for pedestrians, who believe that the vehicle should stop. Uh,
but that is something that we can look at through traffic counts and
observations.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#13 Page 55
Bailey: Okay. So ifin addition to this, or if the neighborhood expressed concern
about that, we could direct them to you.
Yapp: Sure.
Bailey: Great!
Elliott: I agree with everything you just said, John, and I hope you take a look at
whatever the three-way T -intersection is. I think it's Kimball Road and...
Yapp: Kimball and Whiting.
Elliott: ..and Whiting.
Yapp: There's also Kimball and Governor.
Elliott: .. . and on the right, there is, uh, almost a blocked view because ofthe tall
flowers that grow there. On the left, there is very limited view because of,
I believe it's a curve and a slight hill, and it seems to me that...I hope you
look at that as a possibility for a stop sign.
Champion: Well, I. . .I think we all got the same phone call, um, and I think we should
look and see if they do need stop signs, but I can tell you personally that
stop signs that aren't used are really dangerous.
Yapp: You bet.
Champion: I've almost gotten hit twice. We have stop signs in the Longfellow
neighborhood that are not warranted.
Elliott: Was it Dee after the two of you fought? Was that it? (laughter)
Wilburn: Either way, the.. .the underlying issue you're talking about, people's
behavior around traffic and if people would follow the speed limit
anyway, we probably wouldn't be talking about the speed humps. It's
whether or not, uh, speed humps are a way to try and help force the issue
of following.
Yapp: This process has generated many other, uh, calls and concerns in this
neighborhood, including visibility issues, pedestrian issues with the
sidewalk, as well as the speed of traffic.
Wilburn: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#13 Page 56
Yapp: But, yeah, we will look at those stop sign warrants. Would likely wait
until school starts in the fall, because there is some school related traffic
on these streets also.
Elliott: The point was brought up in the letter as to the snowplows in the winter.
Is that a problem with the humps?
Yapp: In the other areas that we have done speed humps, and I think on Teg
Drive for five years now, I believe, they've been in place. Once the
snowplow drivers have gotten used to them, they've been fine. It did take
an adjustment period.
Wilburn: I will allow, uh, comments from the public. I know some folks came
down to speak to us. If you could please limit your comments to five
minutes, uh.. . and state your name for the public record.
Lindenboom: Yeah, Robin Lindenboom. I live at 700 Kimball Road. I had a few
questions about the survey, and I didn't know ifthere was anybody here
that could answer it. I tried to stop by the City Planner's today and uh,
there were two engineers and one was sick and one was on vacation, so I
couldn't ask anybody. Uh, is there anybody here that would be able to
answer some questions about the survey?
Wilburn: And correct me if I'm wrong, typically what we do, we do survey people
on the, the existing street in question. We also. . .last year made a change
where we post signs so that anyone passing through that area would be
aware that there would be, that a traffic calming procedure is being
considered for that street, and so that's how we invite people, the public,
to come down and comment on it. Is that fair, John.. .John was shaking
his head yes, so.. .does that answer your questions, or...
Lindenboom: Well, I guess my main concern is that, basically what we're saying is that
8 out of27 families responded to this. In talking to a couple of neighbors
today, I had one say there was one family that never got a survey so they
didn't get the chance to respond, and they said they would have said "no"
to it, and then someone else, and of course this is second-hand information
I'm getting, but someone else said that one family because they lived on
the street and also owned a rental property, got to vote twice. And I had
some concern about the survey itself, so I was going to ask if perhaps you
could put off your vote for one session so I could at least talk with the
people who put the survey together to find out how it was...
Wilburn: Okay, well, I'll just answer one quick thing and then, um, maybe some
other folks can corne forward and express a comment, and during that time
you could ask directly the staff member, but as I said, the people on the
street are given the survey. We post signs so that others are aware. We
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#13
Page 57
can't control whether, you know, for whatever reasons if someone misses
something in the mail or, or that type of thing.
Lindenboom: Some of the houses on there are rental properties. So in some cases there
might be someone there that's renting that might respond to the survey. In
other cases it might be the house is vacant, and the survey goes to the
household. It may not go to the owner and they might not even know
about it.
Wilburn: Okay. Did you have any other comments before I ask a staff member to
just address how that happens?
Lindenboom: I think I have one other, and that was that, uh, there's something about
after a year, there's the possibility of taking a revote to decide whether to
keep the speed humps there or not.
Wilburn:
That is correct. We've done that in other areas.
Lindenboom: What is the percentage of people that would have to say "no" to remove
the speed humps? 'Cause that's nowhere in the survey.
Wilburn:
Urn, I believe we base it on the similar guide, similar guidelines, so if,
uh...
Lindenboom: So what we're saying is, I think it was like 60% vote for it, it goes in and
then if you're going to remove them, you have to have the 60% to take it
out. (unable to hear)
Wilburn:
Urn, in that case it'd probably be a majority.
Lindenboom: .. .that's not really clear in the survey.
Wilburn:
Yapp:
Wilburn:
Yapp:
Wilburn:
Okay.
I believe that's correct, however, that 60% is a guideline for Council. You
may, uh...
It's our policy. We can.. .yeah.
You may chose to take them out based on other public input that you
receIve.
Right. Okay. So you're basically asking for us to.. . defer untiL..
Lindenboom: If possible - I'd kind of like to get a little more information.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#13
Wilburn:
Page 58
Okay. All right.
Lindenboom: Thank you.
Wilburn:
Phillips:
Yapp:
Phillips:
Would anyone else care to address Council? Please state your name, limit
your comments to five minutes.
I'm Kirk Phillips. My wife and I have lived at 532 Kimball Road for ten
plus years, and I appreciated the comment from the planner earlier about
long-time neighborhoods where people have lived a long time. There
were many of us that attended the earlier public hearing with the traffic
calming process. Some have lived there greater than 50 years and it is an
established neighborhood. I'm thankful for the traffic calming program
and the options that were posed to us, and it does appear that from the
comment of the person that I think might work with you, that stop signs by
studies that they had performed were not recommended. Other features
were considered like circles that you would see going out to Oakdale
Campus, that the geography and other concerns of the street would not
allow those at all. So they recommended, based upon our speeding
problem, that these humps were the best option, and again, I'm thankful
for that. Other features in addition to the speed, the speed by way of
which I recall 85th percentile was at about 40 or greater miles per hour,
which I believe would say 15% of the traffic going across Kimball Road is
traveling at greater than 40 miles per hour. Is that correct?
In one location yes, that is correct.
And the maximum speed on this narrow speed was about 75 miles per
hour, so we have a speeding problem. Uh, additional features of the street
include, it's a very narrow and hard-surface street, which I think is
conducive to faster speed, but a dangerous situation. The sidewalks are
immediately adjacent to the curb, so there isn't a three or four foot buffer
of grass that separates the traffic from the sidewalk, and the sidewalks are
very narrow and in many instances, vegetation force the walkers to be
right next to or even onto the street. Uh, the fences, the trees, and only
one sidewalk on only one side of the street. The other side has very steep
terrain in many places and walking is not possible. There are very young
children that walk to and from school, and live in the neighborhood, and
we have one wheelchair-bound resident that also uses those sidewalks,
which I believe is a dangerous situation, given the fast rate of traffic that
passes by. Um, I'm excited about the humps! (laughter) Not excited, but
we.. .my wife and I drove by the humps near City High, and if a person
drives at 25 miles an hour, it does not seem to cause damage, cause
reckless driving. Ifwe drive over those humps at the proper speed.
Excess speed over the humps could cause damage to somebody's car, but I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#13
Page 59
think that's the point of it. So, I hope you'll support this as it's written.
Thank you.
Wilburn: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else?
Goldsmith: Hi, my name is Zach Goldsmith. I called all of you. I think I talked to
some of you. Uh, but, urn, I love the fact that we're looking at speed. I've
lived on this street for about three years, and from day one I thought that
people drove way too fast on it. I tried to get in touch with police to get
them to get those little speed trap thing out there just so people could see
parked in my driveway, but they said they couldn't put it on public, or
private, property. Urn, I do however think that we're not looking at the
whole issue here. I think we're looking at the top of Kimball, which is
great. We need to slow that down, but I think we're not looking at the
issue of Whiting, and the issue of the approach up to Kimball from below
Governor. Um, people coming up the hill go at incredible speeds. People
going through go at incredible speeds at times, and the speed humps are a
great idea, but I'm the one with the stop sign concept, because what I think
it does is I think it will address the issue of Whiting. Urn, at Kimball and
Whiting you have a, right now, a one-way stop sign where you corne to a
stop at Kimball Road and Whiting has direct movement through there, um,
and especially at times when kids are moving, 8:00 in the morning, 3:00 in
the afternoon, kids are going and coming from school. That can be a hairy
intersection. The bus comes through there around that time also, so. . . um,
can be a situation. I think that having stop signs there would have people
corne to a stop at that moment, and all three ways would realize right-of-
way. All these intersections - Kimball Road and Whiting, Kimball and
Kimball, and Kimball and Governor, I think, would do better having three-
way stops than what they are right now. There's a lot of near-misses that
I've had personally, like with myself coming up Kimball and people
turning off of Kimball Road, I'm sorry, Kimball Avenue in front of you,
or at the Governor intersection, as well, whereas if I was corning up to that
and know I had to stop, that would take care of the right-of-way issue or
the near-misses that happen. Also thinking that, ifthere's a three-way stop
there, the people corning up the hill, which haven't been addressed yet, but
I assume that they're coming because I've talked with some of them, urn,
they'll have slower speeds in that area. So...I appreciate your time and all
of you that got back to me and talked to me, I appreciate that, and that's
my thought. Hopefully you'll look at the alternate ideas as well and not
decide yet.
Wilburn: Thanks for your comments.
Funk: My name is Diane Funk, and I live at 520 Kimball Road. I've lived in the
neighborhood for 21 years, and um, I was pleased when I saw signs going
up and notices that there were traffic calming measures being taken. Um,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#13
Wilburn:
Ferguson:
Wilburn:
Page 60
I feel like the neighbors that were at the meeting, that attended the
meeting, were well informed about what their options were. I think many
of us were hesitant about humps in the first place because we thought
maybe there would be other options - turning circles or whatever. My
understanding from what Anisa told us was is that we had no other
options, other than the traffic humps. When we discussed stop signs at
that meeting, she at that point, from my understanding, and I don't know if
anybody else recalls this, said to us that she was bound by federal
guidelines that determined when you could put stop signs on roads and
that we did not qualify for having stop signs, because of the, uh, the risk
of. . .I think what this man was talking about, as far as people not
observing the stop signs. Um, I have, my children have grown up in that
neighborhood. It's frightening to have your kids walk to and from school
on that road because, uh, the sidewalk is right next to the curb, and I'm
surprised there haven't been an accident that way. I live on the corner of
Governor and Kimball, and there have been numerous accidents at that
corner from people speeding down Kimball Road from the Whiting
Avenue area, and also up Kimball Road from the other area. We've had
numerous property damage done to our house, had our hedge taken out,
our fence from people not being able to make the corner because of the
speed. So the...it definitely is a problem, and I think that, urn, a lot of us
as neighbors are really anxious to have something that would make the
neighborhood safe for those of us who live there, but also other people that
are traveling through the area.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Randy Ferguson. I live at 712 Kimball Road, and have
lived there for 15 years. Um, Kimball is a very unique street. And has
already been mentioned, it's a very, very narrow. It has a blind curve. It
also has a long stretch of street that some people just cannot resist going
down it at incredibly fast speeds, and it...I guess it's not so much a point
of us giving our opinions about the speeds, but the data that has been
collected reinforces the speeds that we've been seeing, and I also echo the
sentiment about the sidewalk. I walk up and down the street every day, to
and from work, and it is a very frightful experience having a car passing
by your at 25 miles an hour, within this distance, of my person. So it's an
incredibly dangerous situation. Urn, so, I brought a prop. This is what
we're talking about here. This is three and a half inches tall, so I guess
these bumps would be anywhere from three to four inches in height, very,
very insignificant. If you drive at the limit, how could a little hump like
this impact you. So, I hope that you'll vote in favor of this. I feel adamant
that we need this to make our unique little street a safer place. Thanks!
Thank you. Would anyone else care to address the Council on this issue?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#13 Page 61
Long: My name's Andy Long. I live at 703 Kimball Avenue (unable to hear)
Kimball Road. Um, I see a lot of traffic go by at a fast rate of speed.
Some people do not pay attention. It's not particularly that they want to
speed, they just drive along and don't particularly realize how fast you're
going on that road. I have a six-year-old son and I have a two-year-old
daughter and I'm very concerned about. I want any measure to slow
traffic down. Thank you.
Wilburn: Thank you for your comments. Would anyone else care to address the
Council on this issue? Further discussion?
Elliott: I agree with the point Mike raised last night that I think we need to address
the process when we install street humps, or bumps, with fewer than half
of the people seeming either not to be contacted, or seeming not to care.
So I hope we do that at a subsequent work session.
Wilburn: I always think that.. ..tonight, coming down here tonight maybe new for
some of you, and some of the viewing public. The issues around are use
of traffic calming devices really are the same. There's some nuances
based on topography or some of the unique characteristics - Lexington
comes to mind for me, but the issues are really quite similar, and I think
that we do what we can. I think we do a good job of trying to post notice,
and last year we modified that policy to post visibly on the street for folks
using it, so that they're aware and they can come down, or send letters or
emails.etc..fortheCouncil.Um. . .
Champion: This street is a special exception. I mean, you're right. The sidewalk is so
close to the street. I find that very frightening and if people weren't
speeding, we wouldn't have to worry about traffic calming, and with these
humps, ifthey don't speed, they're going to be fine. They don't, they're
not a hump. They kind of gradually go up, don't they? So they're not just
running over a brick.
Wilburn: It's a hump not a bump.
Champion: It's a hump! (several talking)
Bailey: Well, and it's not...I mean, this street is a unique street, but it's not an
exception. I mean, this follows our policy, even though some of you
might have questions about the policy, and I hope that as we do these
kinds of traffic calming efforts in particular neighborhoods, that other
people as they drive through other people's neighborhoods, remember to
drive the speed limit as well, so we're not having to do humps throughout
the town.
Wilburn: You have another statement...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#13 Page 62
Yapp: The design, it is approximate 10 to 12-foot wide, three inch - I thought
that prop was great - uh, might have to borrow that, three to four inch, so
it is a gradual hump. I also wanted to add, you will also be getting in the
near future the 200 to 500 blocks of Kimball have also qualified, and
we're holding a neighborhood meeting, I believe, July 25th to discuss
options with the, with that segment of Kimball.
Wilburn: Um, roll call. Item carries 7-0.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef to accept correspondence.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Carries 7-0. We okay?
Anybody need a break? Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#14 Page 63
ITEM 14 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A LICENSE
AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, LANDOWNER
MARC MOEN, ET AL, AND TENANT LINN STREET CAFE, INC.
D/B/A! LINN STREET CAFE, FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE.
Bailey: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Bailey: I'm so excited about this!
Correia: I think there's a lot of great things going on in that, in our Northside
Market Place.
Bailey: I wondered when they'd get a sidewalk cafe there for a long time.
Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries 7-0. Had a good dinner there the other night!
(laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#15 Page 64
ITEM 15 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER
TO AWARD PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, EXECUTE
SAID CONTRACTS, AUTHORIZE WORK AND APPROVE
CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BOND FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PURSUANT TO IOWA
CODE SECTION 26.14(2007).
Champion: Move the resolution.
Wilburn: Moved by Champion.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Correia: Wonder if Eleanor could just explain, for the public, what this...
Dilkes: Um, there has been a change in State Law about when a public
improvement project, which is like building of a street or a building, kind
of bricks and mortar kinds of projects, uh, has to go through a formal
bidding process, and has for years and years been $25,000 and above that
threshold we have to go through, we have had to through the competitive
bidding process at the Council level, which extends the period of time it
takes to do the competitive bidding. Urn, the Legislature did an
amendment that changed that threshold to $100,000, but they also put a
bunch of requirements in place for, for projects under $100,000. And for a
city our size, between.. . for a project between $51,000 and $100,000,
there's a competitive quotation process that needs to be followed. The
results of that process have to be reported to the Council, but it doesn't
actually occur at the Council level. This resolution addresses that level of,
um, project, that $51,000 to $100,000, um, and authorizes staff to do what
it needs to do to make that process happen.
Correia: That would be those, that would be reported to the Council at a formal
Council meeting?
Dilkes: We'll report that most likely, because I told you last night, we're in the
process of getting our local procedure put in place for all these changes
that were made at the State level, and we'll let, inform you when that's
done and give you a copy of that, but our plan is likely to do it by memo to
the Council. You'll get a formal agenda.
Elliott: So the Council does not have to handle it as an action item to approve or
disapprove, but the Council will be informed. Okay.
Dilkes: Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#15
Page 65
Correia:
We receive as correspondence in a formal agenda?
Dilkes:
Yes, and there is a competitive process.
Wilburn:
Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#16 Page 66
ITEM 16 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A LEASE AGREEMENT
WITH THE STATE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE USE AND
BENEFIT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA FOR THE LEASE OF
COMMERCIAL SPACE IN THE IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY
BUILDING.
Bailey: Move the resolution.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? (several talking)
Correia: So now that space is fully leased, so that's good news.
Vanderhoef: Very good news! For public information, the rents are being used to retire
the bonds, uh, that were used to build the Library.
Champion: To help retire the bonds.
Vanderhoef: Uh-huh. Yeah, it'll take a lot of years with just that.
Wilburn:
Roll call.
Dilkes:
I just wanted to let you know that, um, the parties are still working out the,
uh, tedious details of the air handling system. Urn, and so what we did
was include a provision in the lease which says.. .which authorizes the
Library Director to sign that agreement when it's worked out so we could
get this done.
Wilburn:
Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#18 Page 67
ITEM 18 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT
OF DALE HELLING AS INTERIM CITY MANAGER FOR THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA.
O'Donnell: Move the resolution.
Bailey: Move the resolution.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Bailey: Thank you! (laughter)
Vanderhoef: We're fortunate to have an experienced assistant city attorney who can
step in. ..manager. (several talking and laughing) Oh yeah! No! Well, I
recall recently an attorney was appointed interim city manager.
Champion: Hope the town only had 100 people!
Elliott: I would normally be against going at a percentage this high. I would
prefer going for like 15% for a time and, but this particular situation
appears to.. . going to be time-consuming that I think this level of
percentage increase is very much merited and as a matter of fact, if we
don't get any kind of response from the Iowa Supreme Court, we don't
know how long this process will continue. So, normally I would not be in
favor of this high of percentage, but in this situation I very much am.
Wilburn: What you're referring to is the, um, Charter Amendment related to, that's
at the Supreme Court, related to a potential approval vote for the city
manager, and the potential impact that may have on recruitment for the
city manager position. And just for the benefit of the viewing public, um,
other city department acting appointments over the last ten yeas have
resulted in increases that were between 10 and 25%, and just as a point of
information, the last time that Dale was appointed as interim city manager,
he received a 41 % salary increase. So... uh, but again, this is
acknowledgment of, um, the hard work that he's about to do.
Elliott: This is habit forming, isn't it? (laughter)
Helling: Seems like every 21 years, doesn't it? (laughter)
Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#19 Page 68
ITEM 19 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 7,
ENTITLED FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION AND TITLE
17, ENTITLED BUILDING AND HOUSING TO ESTABLISH FIRE
AND LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING
GROUP A-2 AND B OCCUPANCIES. (SECOND
CONSIDERATION)
Champion: You know, Mr. Mayor, since we've had.. . discussed this thing to death,
can we expedite this?
Wilburn: That's at the pleasure of the Council. Is that a motion to expedite? Okay,
dies for a lack of second. So would anyone care to. . .
Bailey: Move second consideration.
Wilburn: Okay, moved by.. .second consideration has been moved by Bailey.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Sorry, Connie.
Champion: That's all right.
Elliott: Connie's right, it has been discussed and rediscussed.
Wilburn: Roll call.
Dilkes: I just wanted to point out that there was a minor non-substantive change
since your last consideration. We had referenced in a couple sections, the
International Fire Code, which included a voice alarm requirement, which
would have conflicted with our, the changes Council made. So we've
taken that out to correct that.
Wilburn: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries 7-0.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Bailey: So moved.
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Vanderhoef to accept correspondence. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#22
ITEM 22
Wilburn:
Elliott:
Atkins:
Bailey:
Atkins:
Bailey:
Elliott:
Atkins:
Elliott:
Atkins:
Elliott:
Atkins:
Elliott:
Atkins:
Elliott:
Atkins:
Page 69
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Bob?
Urn, since the City spends quite a bit of money on a number of things to
attempt to beautify and make our community, quality community.. .my
wife and I were driving past the intersection of Muscatine and First
Avenue today, and there has been for years and years and years, an
eyesore there, and it seems like if we could, the City could work with
Project GREEN or maybe an appropriate University class, and if nothing
else, let's get a few loads of dirt, grass it over, put some planters on there,
and I think for maybe a couple thousand dollars, we could take away that
eyesore, which is a former Deep Rock station that was in operation when I
moved to town.
Have Regenia tell ya!
We've been working on this for two, three, seventeen years?
21 years!
21 years!
Will they not allow us to do anything?
They will allow, if you're willing to assume responsibility.
No.
Well, then that's sort of where it ended.
Well, I guess I've been told. (laughter)
It's now owned by a new company. Used to be Kerr-McGee and now it's
owned by a company called Tranax. In fact, within the last year or two,
um, Sarah from the City Attorney's office had written them. I mean, we
were virtually willing to do anything, just let us clean it up.
Yeah!
And just didn't work.
Well.. .
It's a good idea. Great idea.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#22 Page 70
Elliot: Too little, too late.
Wilburn: Regenia?
Bailey: Urn, we had the opportunity to have a fantastic week last week in Iowa
City. The Jazz Fest, I congratulate Summer of the Arts. It was a great
weekend. Thank you very much. The Joffrey outside, urn, Hancher did a
terrific job with that, staging that. It was beautiful. I know that there were
some problems with the fireworks, but I commend those volunteers for
putting those, putting the fireworks on. That was a really fun show. I do
have one question about the Shakespeare stage, and I think I asked this last
year. When are we going to get bike racks down there? Because there are
people, and Council Members, who ride their bikes to Shakespeare
productions, and there are no bike racks near the Festival Stage.
Atkins: I'm surprised at that.
Elliott: Did they have bicycles at Stratford on Avon?
Bailey: Yes.
Elliott: They did?
Bailey: Uh-huh, absolutely! (laughter)
Elliott: Okay, I just want to be authentic.
Bailey: Last Friday at King Lear they had bicycles (unable to hear).
Atkins: Take care of that. ..
Bailey: I asked last year. It was the same problem.
Atkins: That shouldn't happen. There should be bicycle racks there.
Bailey: Yeah, but all in all, it was a really great week, yeah, great week in Iowa
City!
Vanderhoef: Well, Regenia, you've covered a lot of things that I had thought about, but
I have one more thank you to a couple of groups that are enhancing our
city and not asking the City to come forward and help them, and that is
Friends of Hickory Hill, have worked collaboratively with Johnson
County Heritage Trust to purchase land which is adjacent to our Hickory
Hill Park that will expand that natural area within our city, and be
something that we can all be very happy to have over the years, and I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#22
Page 71
really, really thank them for all their work, and good luck on your fund
raIsmg.
Elliott: And it was good of that property owner to make the situation such that it
could be accomplished. I thought, I really appreciated that.
Vanderhoef: The Edberg family gave some land and then some adjacent land was
offered for sale at a reduced price, by the Willa Dicken's family.
Wilburn: Mike?
O'Donnell: I have nothing tonight.
Wilburn: Connie?
Champion: No, I don't have anything. Thank you.
Wilburn: Amy?
Correia: Well, I also had a great weekend. I didn't participate in the (unable to
hear) because I was out of town, so I missed that opportunity, but um, the
Shakespeare Festival was wonderful, the new bathrooms and the lighted,
the lighted walkway. It's an excellent addition to that, to our park, and in
collaboration with the Riverside Theatre, and just congratulate Hancher
for their gift to Iowa. There were so many people at that event. It was
great to see all the kids, you know, experiencing the ballet, um, they just,
the dancers were wonderful. So I just think it was great, and great to
repeat that before the next 30 years, so hopefully they'll be able to do that.
Um, Ijust wanted to let folks know I'm leaving tomorrow. I'm
participating in a National League of Cities and United Way of America
joint effort on the Earned Income Tax campaigns, and campaigns for
Economic Self-Sufficiency in communities, so I hope to come back with
lots of great ideas, um. Connie Benton-Wolf from United Way will be
attending, as well, so we'll have a local team there to hear what other
communities are doing (unable to hear) United Way's, um, on those local
efforts with Earned Income Tax Credit, and other economic self-
sufficiency efforts.. Um, and then I've continued to work with Dale and
Stephanie Bowers and the Human Rights' Commission on planning the
inclusive communities project, and so that's underway. Talking about
kicking off an event some time in October, and will be working on the
resolution and bringing that information back to the Council to do that this
fall.
Wilburn: All right. Just a couple items. I.. . for the Councils' and the public's, uh,
information, the next City Council meeting on the 24th, I will be on
RAGBRAI that week, so I'll be with some of our colleagues from
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.
#22
Page 72
Coralville, Council and City Manager, enjoying RAGBRAI. I will be
back in time for. . .
Atkins: That's not me he's doing RAGBRAI with!
Wilburn: I will be back in time for.. .I'm doing to have to bike down from
Independence, but I'll be back for the Friday night, or Friday afternoon
open house. Also, just a, the journalism students who hung around
tonight, just welcome to the Council meeting. Had offered to do it press
conference style, but you're the remaining few. So, just feel free to
approach Council after we return here.
Elliott: I hope you get credit for this, because it certainly isn't fun for you, I'm
sure. (laughter)
V anderhoef: Welcome to journalism!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 10, 2007.