Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-21 TranscriptionOctober 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 1 October 21, 2002 Council Work Session 6:30 PM Council: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnei1, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilbum Staff: Atkins, Brotherton, Davidson, Dulek, Franklin, Hardy, Helling, Holecek, Karr, Nixon, O'Niel TAPES: 02-75, SIDE 2; 02-82, BOTH SIDES, 02-83, SIDE 1 ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Lehman/We have a video to watch tonight, but before that there are two items. One of those is an addition tomorrow night for a liquor license and the person who is interested is here. You just get up, tell us your name and what the establishment is. Miller/I am Julie Miller and I am--- Pfab/Microphone, ma'am. Lehman/Could you pull the mic down, if you can? Miller/I am Julie Miller with Duds 'N Suds of Iowa City, and I would like to be added to your Agenda for tomorrow night to be approved for a beer permit. Wilburn/Great. Thank you. Lehman/Is that OK with Council? It's all right with me. Vanderhoef/Everything's in order? Karr/Yes, it is. Lehman/All right. Thank you. Pfab/She made it. Lehman/All right, Steven has an item that he wants added to tomorrow night's Agenda. We'll do that right away. farmer/Yeah, I just passed this out at the last meeting. I voted "yes" mistakenly, that I discovered afterwards, for an ordinance in regard to the nuisance infractions and being the fines for that. And (can't hear) I voted "no," I lost my place in the agenda, and so I wanted to know if I could put this on for tomorrow night to correct it. Apparently, under Roberts' Rules, the only way to do this after the result is announced is by unanimous consent of the assembly granting without debate. So, hopefully, it would be short and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 2 sweet. Lehman/How many are interested in putting this on the Agenda for tomorrow night? Vanderhoef/Fine. Wilburn/I have just a question--I'm, my inclination--- Lehman/It takes a unanimous vote so if there's a question about it, there's no point in doing it. Wilburn/No. Lehman/All right, then--- Kanner/What's the question, Ross? Wilburn/You know, if you made a mistake, you made a mistake--but there has to be a sense of permanency to the votes that we take it. And it just seems to me that if you are needing to let the public or supporters know that you might just use the Council time to say that I had made an error in voting that way last time, but when the meeting's over, when the body is closed for that session, it seems to me, that there seems to be a sense of permanency about the voting. It could open up other--I'm not saying you--but for precedence sake, it could open up people wanting to correct votes for a variety of reasons. You're saying, you know, you did it because you made a mistake. But, I don't know, some other folks could, for other political reasons, try and correct their record. So, it just seems to me, there needs to be a sense of permanency to a vote that we take. Champion/If you would ask that night to--- Wilburn/At the end of the night, it would have been a different story. Champion/We could have people pressuring us after we make decisions, change our mind, and ask for a recall. I just think it's a good idea for the sake of the--- O'Dormell/I agree. A 4-3 could be reversed to a 4-3 the other way, so--- Lehman/ But the point is, it takes a unanimous vote so--- Pfab/I just think that, Steven, it doesn't make any difference. I would say if he'd have come at the next meeting and asked it I would have said no. I would have no problem this time, the first time we meet, but that's--- PCRB VIDEO Lehman/OK, the next thing is a PCRB video. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 3 (Police Commission Review Board Video shown to Council) Champion/Good. Vanderhoef/Very well done. Lehman/Great. Wilburn/Fine. Vanderhoef/It is. Kanner/I think it's well done. O'Dormell/They did comment on 24 to 26 complaints--I guess it should be brought out that like 18 of those were from one person. Lehman/I think though that they stated at the end of the panel--I'd leave it that way because they only had less than (can't hear) four or five issued. Wilburn/Yeah. All they had three years ago. Lehman/Any other conmqents from Council? Atkins/And so you know, our folks did that. Champion/Oh. Wilburn/That's an excellent--- Lehman/I think it's really well done. Champion/It's very well done. Pfab/You outdid yourself, Bob. Hardy/Right. Lehman/Now you can do the next one. We'll break for this. POLICE ALCO}IOL VIDEO (Video is shown to Council) Vanderhoef/Super. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 4 Atkins/Thanks, Mike. Brotherton/Thank you. Anyone have any questions about that, you probably (can't hear) Vanderhoef/Where does it show? Brotherton/Pardon me? I can go up front, too. Male/You'd rather go up front? Lehman/Go up front. Brothertorff We showed this video on (can't hear) Channel 4. Obviously, Jerry and Bob did a great job helping us out on that. This is our fifth safety video that we've done. And we also donated copies to the University, their cable television network that's piped into the dormitories. So, I think next year we're going to try and get this to show at the orientation in the summertime when new students come in w/th their parents. Other than that, we're trying to seek out new avenues for marketing the video. If anyone has any suggestions, let us know. We've given out several copies to other media and other University officials. So, the more it gets shown, the better. Vanderhoef/Is this something that the networks--they do a certain amount of free showing of information for the public? Brotherton/Channel 9 did a brief story on it, but I don't know if they're willing to commit I 1 minutes. Lehman/It's too long. Brotherton/Yeah. Lehman/Public service messages are generally like 60--- Brotherton/Smaller. Vanderhoef/Yeah. Brotherton/Yeah. They did a brief and did show some clips of it when it first came out, Channel 9. The newspapers all ran a story on it also. But as far as a regular showing, I don't know if they'd be willing to do that, and I'm in constant, you know, daily contact with most of them. I can certainly ask them that. Vanderhoef/Well, or briefs. Brotherton/Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate ~'anscription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 5 Vanderhoef/And maybe just at the start of the school year, they might. Brotherton/Right, that'd be a good thing to show next year; you know, revisit it with the television and the newspapers. Champion/Do the fraternities and sororities and dorms all have copies? Brotherton/No. Not at this point. It was thought about showing it at dorm, residence hall orientation, but to get all those copies made just was an insurmountable task. We didn't get this actually finished until the middle of August. So I think next year we're going to try and market it a little bit better. That's one thing that we certainly should do after orientation, make copies, and I'm hoping that the University will be able to help us out and assist in making copies for all their RA's. Vanderhoef/The Inter-Fraternity Council does a mass meeting for young people who are going out for rush. If you would go through that group, they could show this at their orientation meeting before rush starts. Brotherton/Good idea. Atkins/Mike, is it on the Internet? Brotherton/It's getting digitized and I think right now City Cable has it done, and it's getting ready to go onto the City web people to get it on. Atkins/But eventually all five of our videos will be on our web page. Pfab/I'm going to ask you a question and it's not facetious, but it might be a dumb question. Have you ever shown it in a bar? Brotherton/No. Wouldn't be able to hear it. (Laughter) Pfab/It's very visual--you may not have to hear it. (Laughter) Lehman/All right. Thank you very much. Brotherton/Thank you very much. Champion/Thank you. Atkins/Thanks, guys. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 6 REVIEW ZONING ITEMS Lehman/ OK. Zoning items. Oh, I was looking for you. Not anymore. Franklin/This should be quick. O'Dormell/I've heard that before. a. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 5 ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 6, ENTITLED "ZONING," ARTICLE U, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT," SECTION 7 ENTITLED "VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES" TO INCREASE THE MUNICIPAL INFRACTION CIVIL FINES FOR VIOLATING THE ZONING CODE. Franklin/The first item is setting a public hearing for November 5th on an ordinance amendment. This is for the fees for Zoning Code violations. It is right in line with the other fees--- Lehman/Right. Franklin/...that you've been doing but we had to do it through the P and Z, because it was in the Zoning Code. b. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 5 ON AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THE NORTHERN 2' OF BENTON STREET BEGINNING 60' EAST OF GILBERT STREET AND ENDING AT MAIDEN LANE. (VAC02-0005) Franklin/Item b is setting a public heating on the vacation of a portion of Benton Street. This is just 2 feet of the Benton Street tight-of-way east of Gilbert Street. Pfab/OK. I have a question. What is that? What's going on there? Franklin/What this is about is there is a business that's at the comer of Benton Street and Gilbert, the Savvy Boutique, in that building there. They want to put in the other pa?t of the building a restaurant. They are trying to work out the parking spaces so they have enough room to have the parking for the restaurant and for the Savvy Boutique. They need this 2 feet to enable them to design their parking lot such that they can accommodate the parking for those two uses in that location. c. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM LOW-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY (RM-12) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY LOW-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY (OSA-12) ON 1.06 ACRES TO ALLOW A 14- UNIT MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF FIRST This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 7 AVENUE SOUTH OF STUART COURT. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item c is --- Kanner/Karin--- Franklin/Yes. Kanner/Could we go on number a--give me figures on how many violations are, or could you get that to us by the hearing date? Franklin/How many violations? Kanner/Zoning violations. Franklin/How many zoning violations there are--in what period of time? Kanner/I'm not sure. Just to get an idea, I assume, we want to raise this because we think that people, that it's not appropriate, it's not having an effect--so I'm trying to find some way to--- Franklin/ It's one of the recommendations of the Neighborhood Housing Task Force. Kanner/So, I'm trying to figure out if it would have an effect or does it matter, because I'm not exactly sure what the timeframe would be or what other parameters to look for, but some sort of thing that would let me judge whether or not there is a problem. Franklin/I'll talk to Doug and see if he can't get that. Kanner/Thank you. Franklin/OK. Item c is second consideration on a zoning from RM-12 to OSA-12 for the multi- family building on First Avenue. And there's expedited consideration requested there. d..CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM 1) HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-44, TO MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-20 WITH A CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT, FOR AN 8.69-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 1 AND WEST OF MILLER AVENUE; 2) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, CC-2, TO MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 4M-20 WITH A CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT, FOR A 1.45-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 1 AND WEST OF MILLER AVENUE; AND 3) MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 4S-8, TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, CC-2, FOR A 1.45- ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 1 AND WEST OF MILLER AVENUE. (REZ02-00013) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 8 Franklin/Item d is second consideration on the rezoning that we call the Ruppert property. e. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTIONS OF THE HARRISON STREET AND PRENTISS STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND AN ADJOINING ALLEYWAY, WEST OF MADISON STREET. (VAC02-0004) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item e, second consideration on the vacations at Harrison and Prentiss Streets rights-of- way. f. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTIONS OF FRONT STREET AND PRENTISS STREET GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET AND WEST OF MADISON STREET. (VAC02-00002) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item fis second consideration on the vacation of Front Street and Prentiss Street portions. That's the slivers one. g. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, SECTION 14-6tt- 1, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE, TO ALLOW REPAIR OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS AS A PROVISIONAL USE. (PASS AND ADOPT) Franklin/Item g is pass and adopt on the Ordinance amendment for truck repair in the I-1 zone. h. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF WINDSOR RIDGE PART 16, A 6.94-ACRE, 5-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF ASHFORD PLACE AND CAMDEN ROAD. (SUB02-00014) Franklin/Item h is a final plat for Windsor Ridge Part 16. This is at the end of Camden Road and Manchester Lane. This is the location map. I think it gives you a pretty good idea of where it is. One single-family house--or one single-family lot--that is this lot right here, and the other lots are for duplexes that will be condominiumized. Everything is in order for that to go. Vanderhoef/They're going to be condominiumized? Franklin/Yes. Vanderhoef/So, what--- Franklin/It's just two, they're just putting it on two lots--or three lots. It would have to be condominiumized. They'll be sold as condominiums. That means that everybody owns a share of the common elements. They aren't actually single-family residences on independent lots. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 9 Vanderhoef/So how does this differ from zero-lot line? Holecek/The difference is the construction would not have to meet the construction requirements of zero-lot lines where you have a property line that goes off in between the two units and requires that you have separate sewer connections and that you have a certain fire-rating wall between the two units. Pfab/Karin, I have a question. How much, what is community property there? Franklin/It would be all of the ground outside of the units. Pfab/So, what is the part that we're looking at right now? Franklin/OK. Pfab/Could you move your little arrow around? Franklin/Yeah. The part that we're looking at right now is this. Pfab/OK. So it's the whole thing. Franklin/And then it comes down here, right here. This road continues on this way. There's a road that comes up through here, which is a private drive. Pfab/Is that going to be the limit of units that are on that ground? Or is this only one phase? Franklin/This is just one phase. The rest of the Lindemarm farm is this whole thing. Pfab/No, no, what I mean--go back to where you were. It looks to me like there's just condominium on the--- Franklin/Here. And up along here. Pfab/OK, there's no numbers there, that's why I was--- Franklin/Oh, I'm sorry, wait a second. No, that's right. Along here. No, it is one lot and there are a number of duplex units on these lots or two-unit structures on these lots. Pfab/Now? Franklin/No. They will be built and they will be condominiumized. They will be sold as condominiums. Pfab/So, those will be zero-lot line? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 10 Franklin/Not zero-lot lines, technically. They'll look like it. Pfab/OK, they'll look like it. OK. Franklin/Yes. Pfab/They'll have the appearance. OK. Franklin/Yes. Pfab/And so there will be more of those in the--now, where will those go? Franklin/Hem. Pfab/OK. Franklin/And here. And down here. Pfab/What's in the way on the far, to your left, I guess it would be? What's up in there? Franklin/Well, I can't--I'm sorry I can't read it. But there's 16 duplexes total. And we don't have an exact configuration, but I can get more information for you. Pfab/But see, it looks there's eight in this outside, or the one to your left. Franklin/That this is awfully big for that many units--is that what you're saying? Pfab/Yeah, it looks like it--- Franklin/ There's a drainage way, as I recall, in here because there's a storm order management basin up here that I think comes down through here. And I'm assuming that the duplexes then will be built along this side of the road. Pfab/OK. That's fine. i. CONSIDER A LETTER TO TIlE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING FROM A-l, AGRICULTURAL, TO CP-2, PLANNED COMMERCIAL FOR 54.8 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HERBERT HOOVER HIGHWAY AND WEST OF INTERSTATE 80 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SANITARY SEWER TREATMENT (CZ02-012) Franklin/The next item is a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval ora rezoning at the Herbert Hoover Highway and Interstate 80 interchange. This property is the subject of the fringe agreement, and if you recall, the fringe agreement was amended maybe a couple of years ago, to allow some commercial This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 11 development at this intersection. What is being requested now is that this 54 acres, the dark-shaded area, be rezoned to CP-2, which is the planned commercial and the County. What the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended is that this be passed along to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation for approval, that that approval be subject to them obtaining an agreement from the developers that addresses the wastewater issue here since it is not apparent as to how it's going to be sewered at this point in time and also addresses access, accel (acceleration), decel (deceleration) lanes along Herbert Hoover Highway. This would, if it were in Iowa City, we would be doing this as a Conditional Zoning agreement, if we were zoning it at this point in time. The letter does indicate that we think this is premature until this is settled, but one way to deal with it is to have an agreement between the developer and the County that shows how these things are being taken care of. Pfab/Question. Is that--eventually sewer go by Iowa City or not? Franklin/No. Pfah/That is not. Franklin/It is outside of our growth area. OK. Lehman/OK. Franklin/That's it. Lehman/Thank you. O'Donnell/It was quick. Franklin/Yes. REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS Lehman/OK. Agenda items. Kanner/Steve, in our Board and Commission reports that we received recently, it mentioned plans for fiscal year '03 for each of the boards. We got that in our packet. 1 was surprised to see for the Animal Shelter their plan is to do a leashless dog area. That's one of their main agenda items. Are they--I guess Council did not seem to be over-enthused about it, my recollection, and are they working with Parks and Rec? Atkins/I would assume they are. I'll find out specifically for you, get the update. That was the leash list--- Kanner/Leashless. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 12 Champion/A dog park. Atkins/Let me get an update memo for you. That's easy enough to do. I'll take care of that. They had traditionally worked with Parks. 4g. CORRESPONDENCE (1) HAROLD STAGER; SALE OF WATER PLANT Lehman/Any other Agenda items? Vanderhoef/We have an unusual e-mail to us from Mr. Stager about selling the water plant. Atkins/I don't know how to answer that other than I was asked by other folks, at the time of closing, we will know exactly what the dollar figures are, and the funds that advanced monies--it's overwhelmingly the water fund--will be repaid accordingly. And any other monies will be distributed in accordance with how the project was financed. I don't know how else to answer Harold other than that. Until you close, you really don't know the final number. I mean, we're awful close but we're--- Pfab/But them is a formula someplace. Atkins/It's not a formal formula, but, the amount, yes--- Lehman/And we can calculate it. Atkins/Yeah. Pfab/Maybe that's all, maybe if you've got that--- Atkins/What (can't hear) we send Harold a short note? Pfab/Could be. I don't know. Kanner/What did he ask for, Steve. What number is it? Vanderhoef/It's in Consent Calendar g. (1) on Correspondence. He's talking about the sale of the water plant, and I thought maybe he was confused with our reselling the bonds. Atkins/Oh. Pfab/No, no, he knows. Atkins/No, my mad is on the sale of the plant to the University. Pfab/He's approached me on--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 13 Vanderhoef/Oh, that sale. OK. Atkins/I will write a short note, if that's OK with you. But it won't be very elaborate because we haven't finalized anything yet. Pfab/But I mean, if, there's method, and that's correct. Atkins/It has to be audited anyway. Kanner/It goes into our water reserves revenue? Atkins/Reserves, that's correct. Pfab/I know one time he approached me and I asked him, I said, well, let's get on the phone. And he called Kevin. Atkins/Kevin. Pfab/...and apparently he's still looking for more than that. Atkins/Well, I'll get him an e-mail and see what happens. And I'll copy Council. Vanderhoef/OK. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 8, ENTITLED "AIRPORT ZONING" BY REPEALING THE EXISTING CHAPTER IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACING SAME WITH A CHAPTER REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE USE AND HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES AND OBJECTS OF NATURAL GROWTH IN THE VICINITY OF THE IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BY CREATING APPROPRIATE ZONES AND ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES THEREOF: DEFINING CERTAIN TERMS USED HEREIN: REFERRING TO THE IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ZONING MAP, AS AMENDED, WHICH MAP IS ADOPTED BY THIS ORDINANCE: ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION: ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT: AND IMPOSING PENALTIES. Vanderhoef/In item number 7, with this new Airport Zoning, I know that they're doing a lot of this rewrite to get it organized better, My question is, does this change anything in the Protection Zones or the height in the Protection Zone? Atkins/Hopefully, you'll find all that--- Lehman/That's coming up later. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 14 Atkins/OK. Karin and Ron? I know Karin's here, I think Ron's here, and I think Dick's out there waiting for that. Never mind. 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 14, ENTITLED, "UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER FIVE, ENTITLED, "BUILDING AND HOUSING," ARTICLE E, ENTITLED, "HOUSING CODE" TO REQUIRE THAT ALL LANDLORDS AND TENANTS EXECUTE A LEASE ADDENDUM AND BY DELETING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE OF HOUSING VIOLATIONS BEFORE ISSUING A MUNICIPAL INFRACTION. (PASS AND ADOPT) Vanderhoef/And something else occurred to me on the Nuisance Ordinance and Occupancy since we have two different kinds of occupancy. We've got some in the Housing Code and we've got some in the Zoning Code. Is it reasonable to think that ~vhen we go out and check occupancy, that there might well be t~vo different numbers that would show what, if it was a family and a family with unrelated members versus the straight rental where we think about student housing where there are X-number of unrelated members? So, what I've been getting from the landlords is that there might well be two different numbers on occupancy depending on what the makeup of the tenants are. Does that change? Holecek/Well, I don't think so. I think what you're talking about is a family--- Vanderhoef/A family? HolecelU ...as defined. And then the number of roomers beyond that. But there's no difference. The Building Code has minimum standards for occupancy based on height, light, air, area. But the Zoning Cod6 doesn't change occupancy--or maybe I'm not understanding your question? Vanderhoef/Well, I'm trying to get my hands around this one, too. Franklin/I think what it's going to be, it's going to be the number of unrelated individuals that can live there. It won't address the family situation. There are no limitations on family. The occupancy would say Xnumber of unrelated individuals--- Vanderhoef/If it says that, then it's real clear. Atkins/Yeah, it does. Franklin/That's how we would approach it. Lehman/OK. Kanner/And do we have a definition of"family" that will be included also in the amendment? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 15 Franklin/Yes. Lehman/We have that. Vanderhoef/Yes. Karmer/That will be included also in the amendment in the Agenda? Lehman/It's already in the Code. Franklin/It's in the Code already, the Zoning Ordinance. Kanner/No, but would it be included when we talk about what has to be in the lease? Vanderhoef/(can't hear) ...used cars and those have, but the new rewrite makes it very clear that the landlord can set the occupancy at less than what the Court (several talk)--- Lehman/ Right. TAPE 02-82 SIDE 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Lehman/OK. Other Agenda items? Karin? Comprehensive Plan Update. Franklin/This rather long-winded memorandum is in response to that discussion we had back in May. What you had asked for at that point was for me to look at portions of the Comprehensive Plan that would require amendment if you were to do what I think you wanted to do, which was to make it more, make it easier for large multi-family complexes to locate in developing areas, because they can already locate in the existing areas of the City. Because of the concept of how you fit multi-family into these newly developing areas was at the heart of a lot of the discussion both with the Comprehensive Plan and with the District Plans as they have evolved over time, and was how we are to get that diversity of housing in neighborhoods by trying to keep the scale of the multi- family compatible with that of a single-family type of development, such that the multi- family did not dominate the new neighborhoods--that's how it became palpable for the people who are going to live in these neighborhoods to go along with this whole notion. So, I think that if you want to make that change, it's a very basic change in the Comp Plan. It's a change in the basic philosophy of what was behind of building neighborhoods and building a community of neighborhoods. And that's not to say you can't do it. It's just a matter of--it's kind of a major shift in that philosophy. So, you know, I don't know, it's kind of what you want to do at this point. And I think the other point that I made in the memorandum had to do with just how much multi-family we have in our community right now and we're getting more. In fact, one project that I refer to on the Ruppert property has come in. It's 198 units, 555 bedrooms, on Highway 1. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 16 Champion/Is it going to have a swimming pool? Franklin/No, it's not going to have a swimming pool. Not that I'm aware of. Lehman/There's a low spot out there. Franklin/Yes. (Laughter) Vanderhoef/Storm water drainage? Lehman/I live in that neighborhood. Franklin/Yes. So, ! don't know, it's kind of up to you what you want to do. Champion/Karin, why, I mean, is this just an Iowa City--I don't know, is it an Iowa philosophy that multi-family houses need to be dominated by single-family houses? I mean, it's just so foreign to me. Franklin/No, it's--- Champion/I mean, I understand it, but--- Franklin/I think it's something, well, I don't know if it's an Iowa, I don't think it's an Iowa thing. I think it's everywhere that it's that way, except in big cities. And let's understand the size of the community that we're talking about here. We're not a big city. I mean, we're just a city. I mean, we're a small town that is becoming a city. Champion/I mean, I think we--- (People laugh) Franklin/Well, we are. I mean, relative to a lot of other places. Champion/I think we've made a lot of progress in the sense I like the idea of the multi-family on the arterials and surrounding neighborhoods. I think that's turned out (can't hear)--- Franklin/ And one thing to address your question, too. Because we are a University community, we're a college town, for all the good that there is with that, there's also the conflict that happens between student housing and non-student housing. And so whenever we try to approach a neighborhood about putting in multi-family in their area, we have the issue, oh, it's going to be student housing and lead to traffic to noise to all of the things that might come with that. So, we've always got that dynamic to deal with because we put in large complexes of housing for the elderly with nary a boo. I mean, look at Melrose This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 17 Meadows over right next to Galway. And Silvercrest. Champion/They don't make a lot of noise. Lehman/They don't (can't hear)--- (Several talk, can't hear; laughter) Vanderhoef/Karin, one of the things that crosses my mind when I think about these large multi- family ones, and I think Connie brought it up earlier, that we had the young professional; we may have the near-retirement people who want to travel but want to have a nice place; and it seems in Iowa City we've had some shifting in what we see as multi-family in that we're seeing three-, four-, five-bedroom. Champion/Right. Franklin/Downtown. Because we're not seeing the four and five bedrooms out on the edges where it probably is a, the clientele that you're talking about--- Vanderhoef/But I'm not sure what this proposal is that you've seen some for the Ruppert property. Franklin/That's student housing. Vanderhoef/It is student housing? Franklin/Yes. And I think the point that I'm making with that is that as we have things now, that's not precluded. And also the type of development that you've been talking about with young professionals with amenities, if we ever got a proposal for that, it would not be precluded either. I have had conversations with developers about that. We have looked at specific properties about that. They have not come back yet to go forward with it. But, you know, they have this idea they might want to do this but I have to believe that the market is not there or there would be a precedent and we would be seeing these projects proposed multiple times. But we're not. Pfab/At this point-~- Franklin/Were you done? I'm sorry, Irvin, but I don't know, but I think I interrupted Dee. Vanderhoef/What I'm trying to get at is that in the more upscale, or more permanent residency, shall we say, in a large multi-family complex, is there any way that we can approach this with zoning in number of bedrooms per unit or some such thing that would essentially say that if we put in all these amenities, the price of the rentals will probably attract a different kind of renter than perhaps the student housing? Franklin/Well, OK. So, what you're talking about, I mean, that would be somehow trying to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 18 regulate or, yeah, regulate the quality such that it was expensive enough that at least most students couldn't aftbrd it. Now, if you had a two-bedroom with a study and a living room, how many people could you fit in there and pay $2,000 a month? Champion/I couldn't get my evening crowds in that, I mean--- (Laughter) Franklin/It's very hard to get at who's living someplace. Vanderhoef/And the whole point is that we're going forward with District Plans right now and everybody is quote "afraid" that something big and noisy and loud and so forth is going to come into their neighborhood. But you just said nobody fights us when it's a senior housing, so there is acceptance within the neighborhood for a certain kind of clientele that fits into the neighborhood but would have those amenities. And I'm trying to figure out how--- Franklin/I don't know how. I mean, that's one of the difficulties. Because with the senior housing, senior housing is recognized as a justifiable delineation of a type of housing. But--and Sarah, I'll need some backup here--but I don't think there is any way that we can dictate income levels and professionalism or any of that--- Vanderhoef/No, I'm not that--- Franklin/...and that's why you're suggesting we get at it through price points. That doesn't necessarily work. Champion/I think you can look at Marc Moen downtown--- Franklin/That's what I was thinking. Champion/...it would never ever be rented, was rented long before it was done. I don't think price point is the point. Also, I think students who live in the neighborhood in apartment complexes are a different student than lives downtown. Lelunan/Tree. Vanderhoef/I agree with that. Champion/If you want to have big parties and carouse, ! don't think you're going to live out in Scott Boulevard. But maybe. I think we're addressing--- Franklin/We're going to see, too, how some of these apartments, I mean, Windsor Ridge I gave as an example in the memorandum of ways in which you can fit more than, you know, a 12-plex, one 12-plex on the comer, into these plans and have it be acceptable. I mem~, them are 12s, there's 1 Ss, the townhouses that are ail in the Stonebridge Project north of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 19 Court Street. And I think we'll see how that evolves as to who the people are that are choosing in that particular location, and I think it is going to be different than folks who might choose to live on the north side, for instance. Vanderhoef/But we're not seeing the amenities. Franklin/Well, that certainly is market-driven, and if, I mean, we have the letter from Steve Gordon, who was good enough to put that information together for us, but 250 units that you have to have before you get the amenities. Is there a market for the kind of housing that you guys are talking about for 250 units in the young professional market, or whatever it is that you want to see, where it's going to make those amenities pay for themselves? Vanderhoef/I'm just concerned that as we put together District Plans that the neighborhood and the people who went forward in doing the planning of these projects don't vision this kind of a project coming into quotes "their neighborhood." And whether we are zoning ourselves out of the possibilities for these things that--with the right, working with the neighborhood and so forth--might be a real positive thing. And I don't know how to get around that because obviously they're not being talked about when we get down to the District Plans. Franklin/Because we can't make any guarantees as to who's going to--I mean we've got to look at housing type and that anyone can live there. And that's the--- Vanderhoef/I understand that, but because of the philosophy that keeps going forward that we're only looking at, you know, 10-, 12-, 14- and a few 4-pIexes and 8-plexes. You know, we're not visioning any other alternatives. And how can we make a statement maybe in the District Plans that makes sure that the neighborhood understands that this is still something that our Comprehensive Plan allows and our Zoning allows and that, yes, we'll use the good neighbor policy or whatever it is, if someone comes in and asks to put in that kind of a project in quotes "their neighborhood." O'Donnell/Dee, are you talking a gated community or are you talking a larger project--- Vanderhoef/It could be. O'Donnell/...What are you talking about? Vanderhoef/I'm talking about one that is large enough to support the amenities. And so that would depend on the developer and obviously the market at that point in time. Franklin/I don't know, I guess, if the question is whether we go back and look at whether we need this in our community and whether we should change the Comprehensive Plan to make it more possible, I hate to suggest this because it's not like a planner's thing to do, but my suggestion is let's wait and see if we get some proposals for it. Are we getting demand for it? And if we are, then, yeah, I think we should be looking at it. But so far we This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 20 haven't had that. I mean, we're not getting it either, the two requests that I have heard-- one was the student housing project on Gilbert Street, which I don't think is what you were looking for, what you're talking about--- Champion/No. Lehman/That's correct. Vanderhoef/No, what we're talking about right now. Franklin/Steve Gordon's suggestions have to do with the Saddlebrook area. Those amenities that he's talking about were put in as part of the whole Saddlebrook plan. They're there. And they will serve the detached and single-family housing that's there, I guess, as well as the multiples that are there that are going up along Heinz Road. I really don't know if the occupants of the Heinz Road apartments can use the clubhouse of Saddlebrook or not, but there you have enough people in that area that these amenities have been put in, even without the threshold of the 250 units. I guess, Dee, that's what we're talking about. Vanderhoef/I guess what maybe I'm looking for--you've said it several times in discussions with us--that there's nothing that precludes this. Franklin/In certain areas. I mean--- Vanderhoef/And I scanned my Comprehensive Plan again this last weekend and started looking at a couple of District Plans and if I were a developer coming into the community and looking at those plans, I think I would turn right around and leave in that there's nothing in there that says that this is not impossible to do in this community. Franklin/Well, I mean, we just did the Southwest Disthct Plan, and this new project is coming in in the Southwest District. Vanderhoef/Mm..hmm, and it's a student--- Franklin/Yep. Vanderhoef/...which is already a predominant student area, so I'm thinking into our other developing areas, whether it be, you know, the extension of Hunters Run or someplace out in Windsor Ridge or Lindemarm Farm or some of those areas. It just seems like we, that we need to have a statement someplace in the plan that is making this clear that there are ways to do this in some areas and that way it alerts both developers and neighborhoods that this is a possibility and, yes, there will be a lot of oversight when a request comes in. Franklin/I don't know how one would make that statement without figuring out how you give some assurances of who's going to live there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 21 Lehman/Well, you can't. Franklin/I just don't know how you do it. Lehman/Karin, is it possible to, under our present ordinances, if we wanted to, if someone had a large--I'm thinking of, for example, the Carson property with the lake, could the density around the lake at the lake itself be used if someone wanted to put in a very large development with the amenities we're talking about and count the green space or whatever against? I mean, if there was enough space, what is the largest that--- Franklin/With that concept--- Lehman/Right. Franklin/...OK, there's some critical points to it. One is that you have some public space. The other is that you have some commercial near 218 and Rohret Road. The other is that you have some kind of mix of housing. If you fulfill those three things, then you can do a project such as we're talking about if we have somebody come forward with one that is acceptable to us. Lehman/Let's just say that folks around Carson Lake don't want a mix. They want to put in condominiums, retirement sort of things like we have at Wellington, only instead of single- or duplex-style, or 4-plex, they want to do the 8- or 12- or whatever, and these would be luxury sort of condominiums. I think that those out there are two-hundred-and- some-thousand apiece. Franklin/Mm...hmm. Lehman/But they don't want the mix. They want this to be a professional or retirement community and it's pretty upper-end stuff--they've got a lake, they've got the green space around the lake. Can they do that now? Franklin/It would be a planned development, and it would come through Planning and Zoning and you. Lehman/So they could? Franklin/I'm not sure I'm seeing in my head what you're seeing in your head. Lehman/I'm not seeing a whole lot. Franklin/OK. Champion/I'm seeing it. Franklin/If it's the whole thing all the way around the lake, it would be a huge development. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 22 Lehman/For 250 units is a huge development. But I'm looking at this area along First Avenue, for example, and Scott Boulevard--there's some magnificent property out there. And it could, I could see a large development out there. Franklin/And, in fact, that's what's in the plan. Lehman/Well, with a large amount of green space that might not be mixed at all. There may be-- Franklin/ OK. I think where we're tripping up here is where the mix has to be. Every single project doesn't have to have a mix. But when you look at the larger area, what can be defined, say, as a neighborhood. Let's go back to Carson Lake. Between Rohret and 218 and Highway 1, that in that area--- Lehman/ That's an area. OK. All right, fine. OK. Franklin/So it's not each little subdivision that comes in and that's something that we all have to keep clear of. Lehman/And even Idyllwild had, I could see where that could have been done a lot more densely, you know, in some high-rise, larger units, a very upscale, professional sort of condominiums or retirement units. And could that have been done under the present Ordinance? Franklin/Yeah. The underlying zoning there is RS-8. If you did it at eight dwelling units per acre or if you did it at a 12-dwelling-units per acre, you probably would be able to do that there, assuming it could get through the public process and get it voted on. Lehman/Right. And so many of the accouterments that we're talking about really are in forms of green space or public space, which would allow us under present ordinances to cluster these sort of things. Franklin/Right. Right. Lehman/I'm just talking to myself, but thanks. Vanderhoef/If you cluster and then add, quotes, "the clubhouse," that doesn't change the amount of units per acre. Franklin/Clubhouse doesn't count. Vanderhoef/So you can have the computer room and the little workout room and a meeting room kind of thing. Franklin/Mm...hmm. Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 23 Vanderhoef/And that doesn't take away from--- Franklin/Melrose Meadows has a gym. Vanderhoef/Melrose Meadows? Franklin/The elderly housing next to West High. Vanderhoef/Oh. Lehman/Irvin? Pfab/I think, you made a comment there about these are possible if you can get them through the public process, and I think what's going to make that possible is the rules and regulations coming from the Neighborhood Housing Relations Task Force, where these people don't have to just say, what the heck's going to come down? If we get that thing to work, and you won't find the neighbors so uncomfortable if you see a large compact group of dwelling units, Franklin/That would be good. Pfab/And I think that a number of those places I think they would work. And I think you're going to find out less, but if their experience is, well, it's like this, or it's like that, we don't want it. But if we can get the apartment dwellers and the landlords there to keep some kind of order there that the neighbors aren't terrified or--that's a strong word--but they aren't very uncomfortable at what's going on there, I don't think you'd have a process. Yeah, I think that the more we can compact these people that are willing to live in these compact units, everybody wins. Lehman/Yeah, I tend to agree with what you said--that perhaps this is the sort of thing that we should see what develops, because even the project that we turn down did come to us. ! mean, we don't allow that, there's no place in Iowa City that we can do that; but that student housing project did make it to the Council. So if there's another large project out there that wants to come in, certainly we would have the opportunity of addressing that. In this case, we turned it down. Had it been a different project with different circumstances and whatever, Council might have chosen to promote it. But it seems that most of what we potentially see occurring, we almost have provisions for now. I would assume if someone were to come up with a monster out along Scott Boulevard or First Avenue or Carson Lake that was, you know, a significant project with high-end professional units, that we could probably do whatever we could to work with them as far as clustering or whatever, and if they didn't quite meet the exact thing, we might do the same thing we did with Mercy Hospital on First Avenue. How's the rest of the Council feel? Champion/I really, I agree with you, and I really did appreciate your memorandum, as wordy as it was, I really liked it--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 24 (People laugh) Lehman/I appreciate the first page. Champion/I mean, I do think, especially as I did the (can't hear) that it is market-driven, and we do think of this as being rather a cosmopolitan city but it's actually a small cosmopolitan city, and luxury apartment buildings are probably--most people who want to live in a luxury apartment building probably live in a house in Iowa. Lehman/But when the market shows up, I think we'll be ready. I mean, I think that's what you're saying. Frankiin/I think, historically, we have always been responsive to new things that are happening in the market. Lehman/Steven? Karmer/Karin, I had a question then and a comment-question. I'm not quite following why you say Carson Lake is allowed under the proposed Carson Lake Project, large many-unit project, is allowed under the Comprehensive Plan, though the one on Gilbert, Sand Road, was not allowed. I am not understanding the difference there. Franklin/I think it's going to depend on what kind of project was put, was brought in, and whether it's something then that you can fit other types of housing in that larger area. I think that the project on Gilbert Street, as Connie pointed out when it came before you, was going to set a tone for this area that was likely to preclude its development as a mixed housing type, single-family, duplexed, townhouses as this proceeded on. And that sort of circumstance could come up with Carson Lake, too, and that's why we have to look at the project when it comes in and make some kind of judgments, which we do collectively, to see if we think it's going to work and with what visions we have for a particular area. Vanderhoef/It's still not addressing one of the concerns that I have in that particular location and. I'll be anxious to see the plan. Franklin/The Gilbert Street location? Vanderhoef/Mm..hmm. In that sitting on the corner of two arterials is not going to be a highly desirable location for a single-family dwelling or even a lot of townhouses or that kind of thing. Franklin/Well, Southgate's done an interesting j ob there, with a combination of multi-family townhouses and some commemial. Vanderhoef/Well, this is what bothers me. I know I don't want a lot of commemial just running This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 25 along the strip because it's near the arterial. And yet, personally, I wouldn't choose a living location that was right beside the arterial if I could be back a ways from it. So, I am concerned about as we add this new arterial and we've added Scott Boulevard and we've built it up pretty much with multi-family units that we're going to have empty strips along the arterials because there aren't going to be projects that--- Franklin/Well, Scott Boulevard is largely single-family. Along Scott Boulevard. Vanderhoef/The whole east side of it is, there's an awful lot of multis. Franklin/There's some zero-lot lines and the manufactured housing, but that's single-family. All along the east side from Highway 6, then you've got Silvercrest, then the park, and then there's zero-lot lines and single-family and duplex as you proceed up. Then you get into the elderly housing, and then we're undeveloped for up, the whole west side, I think, except for at the Court-Scott intersection, townhouses on Washington, but that's all single-family. Anyway. Champion/I think it's--I particularly like the way that's developed. It does provide a mixed neighborhood over there, and I think it's developed very well. Vanderhoef/Well, the 40-foot setback certainly helps a lot. You bet. Franklin/Sure. And I mean, that's why you--- Vanderhoef/Versus the old style of Sunset Street is the one I always think of, with all those backyards running up to it and the fences along there, but here again, when you put all the townhouses facing the street and then all the parking is in behind, that may be for everyday living, but it certainly isn't conducive to company and the--- Franklin/Yeah, that isn't, the design challenge--- Vanderhoeff ... the design challenge within the unit. I mean, no matter what the front looks like, people are going to enter from the back. Franklin/Yeah. I know. You're right. Vanderhoef/And that's--- Lehman/Steven? Karmer/To finish up on what I was saying before, this is one of the areas that I think we need to work closer with the University on. Obviously,--- Franklin/Which area? The multi-family? Kanner/Housing. Housing, in general. And specifically for multi-unit housing for their staff and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 26 students. And there's a couple of areas that we might consider. Ohio State has--a number of years ago, they formed a nonprofit development corporation to develop housing. Dee, I just gave you some information on that. Their problems are different than ours. They are a big city--in Columbus, Ohio. But I think the principle of the nonprofit development corporation which has the involvement of the City and other organizations within the City are working together on housing issues and livability issues is one that we might want to look at and consider forming a partnership in that way, in terms of housing. And another idea that could fit in with that is we read in our magazines that one of the concepts that's taking off is that universities are either building their own or having some sort of relationship with some of these apartments with upscale, that are half-dorm, half- apartment. And I don't know if the University is considering that, but we again, would want to, I think, work with them in doing this. And do you see a way that perhaps we can coordinate in working more on this? Franklin/There have been conversations between University personnel, myself, private developers about the possibility of the University and a private developer partnering in providing some housing of the variety that you speak of as well as student housing. I don't know that there's anything that is imminent, but I know it has been discussed. Lehman/Well, relative to this issue of--- Franklin/ So, it's not a totally foreign concept here. Lehman/...of whether or not we're interested in doing any change in the allowable density, which I think is the question, is it not? Franklin/Yes. Lehman/Is there interest--- Franklin/The question is whether you want to make changes to the Comp Plan now? Lehman/Is there interest on the part of the Council to go ahead with changes at this point, or are we interested in going along and seeing what develops? O'Donnell/Let's move it forward. I haven't seen--- Vanderhoef/The only thing I would ask is what I said before is that somewhere to make the statement so it's really plain that these are not precluded with the laws that we presently have. I think we just need to alert neighborhoods and developers that these are possible and we're willing to work with people to make them happen in a friendly way. Wilburn/No changes, just see what comes in front of us. Lehman/OK. Are we agreed? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 27 Champion/Agreed. Lehman/All right. We're going to take a break until 8:00. (BRE~L.K) MELROSE AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY Lehman/All right, the next item on the Agenda is the Melrose' Avenue Traffic Study. All right, Jeff?. IP2 MEMORANDUM FROM CITY MANAGER: MELROSE AVENUE AREA/UNIVERSITY--CITY TRAFFIC STUDY Davidson/You have a memorandum from the City Manager and a proposed study outline that's been prepared by staff for the Melrose Avenue, well what's termed the Melrose Avenue Bike and Road Grand Avenue Traffic Study. This comes out of the proposed vacation of Grand Avenue Court. What we're hem tonight for is just to kind of run this by you and see if you have any comments or questions. I have a couple of things that I want to make sure that I'm clear on Council's position before we pursue this. Have had some discussions with the University about it, and, as near as I can tell, they're anxious to be a participant in this study. This will be a little bit unusual for us in that typically when we do these sorts of things we're dealing with another municipality, typically the County, the City of Coralville, those are ones that I think you're all familiar with. This is a level of government that supersedes our municipality, and so, it's a little bit different, I guess. You know, we can get into the study to see how much difference it makes, but one of the things that I guess I would assume we would do right up front in the study is set some ground rules as to what is going to be reasonable to consider and what might not be reasonable to consider. Sarah, when you saw me speaking with Sarah earlier, I was just clarifying what had been my understanding that unlike most of the projects we work with, the City does not have the ability to condemn property from the University. So that eliminates, perhaps, some proposed alignments that if the University says right up front, no we will not consider that, then, you know, at that point we don't have all of the options that we normally have dealing with a private property owner. So, obviously, the University is not here tonight as part of this discussion, so we might as well not get into that too far, but that is an aspect of the study that we might as well all be aware of right up front. Irvin? Pfab/OK. What about the, while it is a traffic study, it is also an area, what about the neighborhood there? Davidson/Well, that's one of the things that I wanted to specifically discuss tonight. Clearly, I think everyone agrees that the neighborhood needs to be and is very appropriately a player in this discussion. And you know typically the way we would approach a study like this, for example, if it was another municipality, we would make sure that the neighborhood as a group had representatives who--and Mrs. Walker is here tonight and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 28 Michaelanne Widness who is the head of the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association has said that Jean is appropriately the person to kind of be the neighborhood's liaison in this, and she is actively involved and interested in it and lives right there. You know, we would acknowledge that the neighborhood is a stakeholder in this area and that their concerns, which are, you know, unique to those of the City and those of the University need to be taken into consideration. It is proposed to conduct the study with a third party that would sort of be in the middle, in between all the entities, and we would make sure that the neighborhood's interests were part of the mix here. Now, in terms of any subsequent agreement, obviously the neighborhood's not going to be party to the agreement. They don't have a financial stake in it and that sort of thing. But we would clearly want to make sure that their concerns were represented. Pfab/I think not only their concerns, but they have a point of view that the rest of us don't have. They look at it from a different perspective. Davidson/Connie, did you have a comment about this? Champion/I would say the neighborhood does have an economic stake in it; they don't have a legal stake in it. They do have an economic stake in it. I just wanted to say that. Davidson/OK. Well, any other comments about that proposal specifically and how the neighborhood's input will be accommodated? Lehman/There was a tremendous amount of discussion over the present Melrose street and the bridge some ten years ago or perhaps a little more than that. And the configuration of the bridge and the road, I think, to Grand Avenue South, is that, I believe that road from the bridge to Grand Avenue South is the same width all the way--is it not? Davidson/Yes. Lehman/And I think as it goes east, then-so it seems to me that the issues relative to Melrose west of Grand Avenue South are basically issues that have been addressed and that road is there, and my suspicion is that that road is going to stay there and is probably going to stay there in the configuration that it is. Davidson/So, you beat me to the punch--that's the next item on my list to discuss with you (people laugh) and that is the study area. Staff's perspective is that although, for example, you had some correspondence from the neighborhood saying you need to consider the intersection that's signalized directly adjacent to there, and we would certainly do that. But in terms of evaluating any proposed geometric changes, we've kind of been similar to what the mayor just ran through. That's kind of been staff's understanding as well, that we reconstructed that fairly recently. At the time it was very well documented that we were reaching a compromise with the design that was landed on there. We knew that during peak periods in fairly short order, we were going to be getting into some operational difficulties, and if you go there during peak periods, you see some of those. But, we're taking that as a given as well. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 29 Lehman/OK. So, I mean, it would seem to me that any configuration of traffic from that point to Riverside Drive should be designed in a fashion that will be of a similar capacity of what we already have there. Davidson/Right. And that's, I think, in terms of similar capacity, that's absolutely right. And with respect to what would eventually be reconstructed, that's kind of what staff is considering to be the study area--- Letunan/Right. Davidson/...from the intersection of Melrose and South Grand to the intersection of Riverside Drive. Champion/I would agree. Wilburn/So, addressing the efficient flow of traffic given whatever the University feels their plans may be. Lehman/Well, buses, emergency, all of that stuff has got to be factored into it. The bottom line is it has to carry, it has to be able to carry the same amount of traffic as efficiently as Melrose does now. Davidson/Right. Arterial street traffic flow, that's the City's big priority; access to their property and what may eventually come of it, that's the University's priority; and access to the neighborhood, that's the other thing that can't be forgotten. And those are kind of three distinct things. Pfab/I keep heating that the intersection at Riverside and Burlington or Grand Avenue, no, I guess, that that's an impossible situation to change. And the more I think about it, it's not. It's a big undertaking if you ever change it. Davidson/I've never known an engineer to say anything was impossible. Pfab/Well, ! heard this--that was the bottom edge and we've got to live with it (can't hear) Davidson/Clearly, that's a pretty provocative intersection because of the two bridges there, the river right there, and the fact that that's a huge intersection right now. I mean, capacity- wise, I'm hard-pressed to think, maybe Coralville's First Avenue on the biggest (can't hear), but it's a, we have tons of capacity at that intersection, and I'm hard-pressed to think how you would increase, realistically, the capacity of that intersection. Pfab/Well, I can see where you can do two left-tm lanes--- Davidson/Yes, you could do the dual left-turn lane, sure; put in a dedicated right turn possibly--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 30 Pfab/...and at that point, I mean, I can see where that--- Davidson/...and I would propose, Irvin, that we take a look at that intersection. That would be part of the--- Pfab/And I think, or one of the things I'm saying is, I think anything that is reconfigured there or rebuilt should have a minimum capacity of what's on Melrose street at some point in time. Somebody will figure out--- Davidson/Well, it's actually larger than that now, so that was a big problem. Pfab/Yeah. Right. And at some point in time, somebody's going to figure out, well, I'm looking at Byington Street, you talk about a headache, from my point of view. I don't know where the answer is to that. Davidson/Well, geometrically, Byington is a little bit unusual. Byington does not have good pedestrian access along it. And remember, when we talk about traffic here, we're not just, we're talking about motor vehicles, we're talking about pedestrians, we're talking about bicyclists, we're talking about somebody pushing a baby stroller along the sidewalk. We want to try and make sure that for that neighborhood, it works for all those users to the degree that we can. Lehman/Well, then, what are you asking us? The scope? Are you asking us the area that we--- Davidson/I heard a general concurrence. I guess I didn't hear anybody say, oh, no, you need to expand it here or there. I mean, do we have a concurrence on the study area? Vanderhoef/I want to say one thing before we move onto it. I would like to expand it only down to the Melrose Court area so there would be a little bit more option of making curves versus square comers at the intersection of South Grand and Melrose. Davidson/Yeah. I mean, Dee, those are so close that--- Vanderhoef/I know. Davidson/...it's almost impossible not to consider them. Vanderhoef/OK. Just so you don't exclude a quarter of a block or whatever it is. Wilburn/Right. Davidson/Well, that's a good clarification, because we had put South Grand in here, so I think that's appropriate. Lehman/OK. (can't hear) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 31 Kanner/I have something. Lehman/Steven? Kanner/I think we have to be more forthright in talking about what their plans are for that area. They're buying up houses across the street on Melrose. We don't know if they're going to put up more parking ramps there. We don't know what dorms they're going to put up there, and that's going to affect the capacity. We don't know what public transit they're going to do, and every time they put up a parking ramp, that affects the capacity there. And I think that needs to be a part of the study, is to take that into account. And perhaps you have that to a certain extent, saying here, goal of UI being a pedestrian-oriented campus. But it doesn't, I don't think it gets to those core issues there. And I think that's part of the reason we're saying we don't want a vacation now is because we don't have any say-so in what you do. This gives us a little say-so in negotiating power to be on equal terms. But I think that's important to--- Davidson/And, Steven, I certainly agree that the more we can know about the University's plans in this area, the better. And, you know, with respect to CAMBUS, they're part of the JCCOG Transit Plan, and we have a rough idea of what their plans are as it pertains to CAMBUS. I mean, there's some modest expansion of that system occurring, but you know, I don't need to tell you, you've heard it from the University representatives that have stood up here at your couple of meetings where this has been discussed. They will go to a certain point in telling you what they intend to do and then after that point, it's kind of nebulous, and you know, I think we all know that things like the Athletic Learning Center, for example, you know, three years ago I'd never heard of the Athletic Learning Center. But a donor comes around, something that perhaps hadn't been thought of becomes a good idea, and that's the way that some of their planning occurs. They take advantage of opportunities like that. We will attempt, as part of this, to find out as much as we can about what the University intends to do in that area, but that's largely up to them as to how much they want to cooperate. Lehman/But the fact of the matter is that there's only so many cars that are going to be able to use Melrose. It doesn't make any difference if they built parking ramps, dormitories, or whatever. We can only put so many cars on that street. If that street alignment is arrived at, with this study between the City and the University engineer and the alignment is there, we know where it's going to be, then they really need--they will then have to work around that alignment. Is that not correct? Davidson/And I truly believe, Ernie, from my discussions with the University representatives that I've spoken with, that they do agree with the concept of when we come up with something that all the sides agree with, that that will then become part of their Campus Plan framework for this area. Lehman/I think that's right. Davidson/I think they intend to do this. How extensive they will take the alternatives we look at This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 32 is what will be interesting to find out. But I do think that they genuinely will agree to something with us and then incorporate that into their planning. Lehman/I think that's true. Wilburn/So Ernie donates his $20 million to have the Lehman--I'm sorry--- (People laugh) Champion/No, I just joked. Lehman/Twenty cents. Champion/And I think they made that totally clear when they were here, when we talked about were they willing to do a traffic study. So, Council, I defer this letter from Douglas True, and I think it's sad that he had to write this letter. They actually met every condition that we asked to participate in a traffic study and abide by some consensus on how traffic would flow through there. We asked for--- TAPE 02-82, SiDE 2 Champion/...the Cannon Gay house would be preserved forever unless, of course, it would be impossible. They did that for us. And what we're doing here, is we're not going to blackmail them. They tell us what their plans are for the next 20 years, because we can't control what they're going to do. We feel like we have a little control here. I think we used that. We used it to get the traffic study. We used it to preserve the house. And now we're really discombobulating with what their plans in that area are, fighting over the little tiny Grand Avenue Court. The question that I want answered, which has to be answered, is how are people going to get to the Law School, how are they going to get to the daycare? I think those questions can be answered and figured out, and I think we're really being rude by not approving our vacation. We indicated to them if they did those things, we would do it and now we're not doing it. Lehman/Well, I think that the purpose of this is to determine the scope, I think. Are we in agreement that the scope of this will be from Melrose to Riverside Drive? Wilburn/Yes. Lehman/Obviously that's something you're going to have to work with as far as the bicycles and baby buggies and cars and buses and emergency vehicles, all that sort of stuff. Those are engineering issues and those are things that you--and you only have a certain amount of parameters to work within. You only have a certain amount of capacity that's available over there. Davidson/But we're looking at trying to improve that as well. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 33 Lehman/Right, but you are constrained by the amount of capacity that is available at Melrose as it is. Davidson/That is true. Lehman/Irvin? Vanderhoef/Well--- Pfab/I think two things. I think that the people in the area out west, farther west, should be, the neighborhood group out there should be, should have some input in it. Not that they're going to have any authority, but these people come in and come through there, they're going to see things that maybe somebody else isn't going to see. So, while you have the neighborhood right there, ! think it would be smart for the group to go out and talk to the, what is it, Southwest Area group, those people coming through there. I don't think that would be inappropriate and because it's another source of information. The other thing that I would like to see is--and it was brought up--is I would like them to see what they know or what future plans they may have access to as far as this overhead monorail. I mean, it's not going to happen, but if somebody out there is thinking about it, it would be nice to see what they have found out about that at that point. Because if they can eventually get to that, that could change that (can't hear) a lot. Lehman/But that's another issue, and that's not going to change the issue of the street. Pfab/No, no, but I think, well, it would if--- Lehman/ No, it wouldn't. Pfab/It could--- Lehman/No. Pfab/It could--- Lehman/No, it wouldn't. No, because the street is overcapacity right now. Pfab/But, and the other thing is, I would like to see them, I think the time is probably going to come that they're going to have to look it over if it ends up at those dorm areas. Davidson/Well, to the degree, Irvin, that they have thought seriously about any of those things, hopefully, that will be--- Pfab/Right (can't hear) Davidson/...be brought out (can't hear)--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 34 Pfab/We know that it's not, whatever they learn isn't going to be there forever. Davidson/I would anticipate, Irvin, that Mr. Ricketts who made those statements to you the other night will be part of the University's team on this. Pfab/No, I'm looking forward to it. I think it's in everyone's best interest. Lehman/Steven? Kanner/A couple things. Just to go back to what Irvin was saying and, Ernie, you were saying, I think that one way to look at capacity is to find other ways to diminish the traffic that's going in there. So I think it is pertinent to these issues of what other modes of transportation are being planned. But, I'd like to urge that, if the neighborhood and their representative wanted to sit in on the meetings, that they be allowed to sit on those meetings. I don't think we made that clear; you said they would be kept up-to-date, but I think it would be good to have them sit in on the meetings. Davidson/Sarah, would you comment on the notion of open to the public, not open to the public, I mean what will be--- Karmer/No, I'm not saying open to the general public, but open to one representative from the neighborhood so that viewpoint can be right there. I think it's important to be heard. Davidson/But, will they be open-to-the-public meetings? Holecek/What type of meeting? Davidson/This would be the meetings between City staff, the consultant and the University, and, as Steven has proposed, the neighborhood group as well. Kanner/Not the group, a representative. Davidson/A representative from the neighborhood. Holecek/I suppose you could include one, but it would not be an open public meeting. Davidson/So, neighborhood representative at the table or not at the table? We're going to take their concerns into view, regardless. But are they sitting at the table or not? Pfab/Well, they're not going to have a vote, but at least they would have the information that they could share. Lehman/I have no problem with that, but I do think you need to limit--you know, we're not talking about reinventing the wheel, Melrose is done, and from my perspective, with whatever you come back with is going to have to have a capacity at least equal to what Melrose is capable of carrying. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 2 I, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 35 Davidson/That would be our goal. Lehman/And I can't imagine, I really can't imagine much, and as long as you take care of pedestrians and buses, and emergency vehicles and that sort of thing, I can't imagine any other consideration on that. It has to be able to--you can't have a bottleneck. Right now, we have--there are certain difficulties there. Davidson/We certainly hope to make it better than it is now. Lehman/Right. Davidson/With the maximum capacity and ability to move all those modes of transportation. Lehman/Ali right, are we in agreement on this? Vanderhoef/Can I just say something? Lehman/Fine with me. Vanderhoef/There's a couple of things. We have a Comprehensive Plan and whether the University calls it a Comprehensive Plan, they do have a plan of some description. Davidson/They have a Campus Planning Framework. Vanderhoef/And, somehow or another, I would like to see brought to Council and to University a combined, so that they Comprehensive plans overlay each other so that we can get at some of the issues, because I think that those are the questions that are being left hanging out there for the people who live in the neighborhood, and yet there are more properties being bought up, and if the intent is to buy up every property through Lucon or wherever it may be, if there can be some kind of an agreement that comes between the City and the University of growth area, is basically what we're really talking about. Davidson/Now that is getting into an area far beyond the traffic count. (Laughter) Vanderhoef/I understand that. But this is the place where it sort of starts in that we have growth areas that keep changing what the City Comprehensive Plan is and we do try to stick to our Comprehensive Plan and so we are basically saying to the City residents, this is what we are going to be designing and so forth, and then all at once, someone buys a house in that area and finds out that there are four brick houses already that have been purchased by the University and then they're very disappointed that the neighborhood is going away. That's one piece. Davidson/And, ifI could just comment quickly, Dee, I mean, the University does participate in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 36 our Comprehensive Planning. The Southwest District Plan--Larry Wilson was a very good, useful participant in that process, was at all the sessions. The University does participate in our Comprehensive planning. We participate in their Campus planning to the degree that they invite us. And that's not always real extensive. They usually at least have the courtesy to try and let us know what they've decided to do, but that's probably closer to the truth than to say that we participate in their Campus planning. Vanderhoef/But what about the letter that we have in this packet that talks about notifying us about these meetings and we certainly are welcome to come to those meetings? Davidson/Right. Those meetings are largely advisory, Dee. There's not a lot of policymaking or decision making that occur at those meetings. They are basically making a, coming up with advisory statements to make on planning proposals. Vanderhoef/So, is that a place that we should consistently have a City staff person? Davidson/Well, at least knowing what's going--and Karin, I believe, you've been getting those agendas for some time, haven't you? So we're aware of what's going on at those meetings, Dee. And if there's something that we would find particularly useful, we would attend. Vanderhoef/That might overlap with our Comprehensive Plan. Well, that's a positive in my mind, and the more that we can work together on that will be a win-win for all of us and keep us away from knocking heads at the final moment, shall we say. The other thing about the capacity issues, as Ernie said, we know we're already overcapacity right now Davidson/During peak periods. The rest of the time it works OK. Vanderhoef/...yeah. Right. And we know that our growth area will affect this a lot, and in our Comprehensive Plan there is something about the fact that for each new development we're supposed to be looking at the capacity of the arterials. Davidson/Which we do in the Arterial Street Plan that was just approved at JCCOG, that identifies all the deficient segments, and Melrose is in that plan. Vanderhoef/I understand that, but what I'm trying to look at is not only capacity but ease of movement and certainly we are in a three-lane mode right now, although the street of Melrose was designed wide enough to be four-lane at some point in time, if--- Davidson/Although I'm not so sure going to four lanes would really increase your practical capacity that much, because you'd have your buses, there's a lot of buses through there, a lot of large vehicles, and getting them onto those shoulders when they're staging helps capacity a lot; but that flexibility is there. Vanderhoef/And that would be one of the things that in the redesign I would look at bus pull- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 37 offs. We don't have enough bus pull-offs. Davidson/With all the bus movement through there, CAMBUS is through there with Red and Blues, every, they've gone to 1 O-minute headways now, so there's a lot of bus service through there. That's great. Vanderhoef/I would hope we could make the case then that the bus pull-off area could well be part of our emergency system that we have to have at certain times to get both ambulances and fire and so forth up there because at peak times--- Davidson/Well, bus pull-offs are definitely something important to consider. Interestingly, bus-- the transit--operators don't like bus pull-offs because it gets them out of the traffic stream and they'd rather stay in the traffic stream. But I think--- Lehman/Right. It's hard to get back. Vanderhoef/It's harder to stay on schedule. Davidsot~/But I think in this area we definitely need to consider that. Vanderhoef/Mm..hmm. OK. Lehman/OK, are we willing to let these folks proceed? I think you know the parameters we've talked about. Davidson/I do. Thank you. Lehman/Go for it. Pfab/Will we get any kind of interim--- Davidson/We'll let you know. Yeah, in fact, when we're all kind of geared up and set to go and have a consultant hired, we'll let you know what's going on. I'll keep you apprised. Pfab/OK, so we'd expect periodic updates. Davidson/Well, we kind of said six months approximately. You know, we'll have to get into it and see, but I would hope in six months we could have something at least pretty far along. Does that sound about fight? Lehman/Very good. OK. Thank you. Wilbum/Thank yc~u. AIRPORT ZONING This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 38 Lehman/Airport Zoning. O'Neil/Let me give you a little bit of summary of where we're at with this. Like any zoning ordinance, the Ordinance needs to be updated every once in awhile. This is a little bit different in the fact, just the progression of how it gets to you and then where it goes from there. The Airport has a separate Airport Zoning Commission. They are the ones that are sending this to you. The chairperson, Jerry Full, is here tonight to answer any questions you might have of him. The Zoning Commission puts this together. It's really kind of an update of language and trying to reflect as close as we can where we want to go with our master plan. It goes to the--the Zoning Commission presents it to the Airport Commission who is an advisory body. They have approved it. It now comes to you. After you have approved it, it then goes to the Board of Supervisors. Not for additional--as a matter of fact, right now, the one that you have and the one the Supervisors have is a little bit different, just because they're an update behind. Hopefully, we've coordinated that enough of them at this point when it gets to them there shouldn't be any surprises in it for them. Howard R. Green did the update for us. This is Dick Blum--I think most of you know him--and he is going to give you a little bit of an overview of what they put together. So, I'I1 let him get started with that. And then if you have questions, why we'll-- Atkins/Ron, and hopefully, maybe it will be in Dick's presentation--would you take just a couple of minutes to explain Airport Zoning, why it's even there. Just somebody needs to cover that. Blum/It's something I do. Atkins/Just a minute or two. OK. Good. Blum/ Sure. O'Neil/So I'll let Dick go through and then we'll sort this all out. Kanner/Now, Dick, you're working for the Green Company? Blum/Mm...hmm. The Airport Zoning Commission and Howard R. Green Company are the Zoning Code--there's engineering work; there's a map that goes with the Ordinance also. So, they had to update all that. Lehman/Now, Dick, if you expect to take us to the graduate level, you're going to be here alone after about 9:00 o'clock. (Laughter) Blum/This is the point, normally, Ernie, this is the point in which I carefully explain what it is that you're about to see so that it gives everybody who realizes they're in the wrong room an opportunity to get up and leave. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Io~va City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 39 (Laughter) Blum/I guess you don't have that option, but I do want to make it clear that this is a noncredit program. What I'm going to do is just spend a little bit of time giving you the background of what Airport Zoning is, how it comes to be, how it differs a little bit from the kind of zoning that you're much more familiar with. This gets to be pretty nerdy so, if I get to a point where I've lost you totally, please stop me at that point. Let's get it. I'm going to try to do this relatively quickly because it really can get very complex. Basically, what Airport Zoning is based on is a Federal statute, which is known to most people just as Part 77. This is Federal law. It establishes a series of artiftcial imaginary surfaces that surround all airports, all public airports--public use airports--in the United States by Federal Code. Most of the zoning in the United States and almost all of the airport zoning in the State of Iowa follows the Federal pattern. The Federal pattern is referred to in State Code as well. The ordinance that is in existence now, as well as the one that is being proposed, follows the same pattern. It starts with a surface that is surrounding the runway. It's called the primary surface. It's at the same level as the runway; it's on the ground. It is always 400 feet longer than the runway, 200 feet at each end, and it varies in width depending on the use of the runway. It so happens that we have three nmways here, and we have all three widths in use, on one of each of the three runways. The reason that the primary surface is established is that is the base upon which all the other zones are based. Now in our Ordinance, we don't have a primary zone because all of this land is owned by the Airport sponsor, by the City. So, what--the other factor that sets up how we zone is the nominal elevation of the airport. And the nominal elevation of the airport is generally the highest place on the airport where aircraft land or take off. Now, we have in the Master Plan for the Airport, a proposal to extend the runway #2/5/7 -- 805 feet generally to the west. As that runway gets extended, it climbs uphill a little bit. What's in the Ordinance is the high point of the proposed runway end, and that's the level that we've used to base the other zones on. That's the 684 feet. That's higher than what we actually have out there right now. But the rest of the zone is based on that starting point. So where we begin is at the ends of each runway; there is an area that climbs and gets wider, trapezoid-shaped area, and it's called the approach slope and in the Ordinance it's the "Approached Zone," and that slope, again, varies in pitch based upon the use of that end of that runway. There are three slopes in use, a 20:1 slope, a 34:1 slope. The 20:1 is where there is no instrument approach to the runway; it is a visual runway only. The 34:1 is sort of a standard instrument approach. Then, we've also incorporated a 50: i approach to Runway #2/5. That's for a precision instrument approach, which we do not have, but which the Master Plan calls for sighting at the airport. What does that mean? Well, it's pretty basic. For every 34 feet horizontally, the slope rises a foot, at 34:1. For every 20 feet it rises, for 50 feet it rises. For 34:1 that means when it's 1700 feet out, it's going up 50 feet. OK? Well, it continues to climb at whatever ratio is set until it reaches a point which is 150 feet above the runway elevation, the Airport elevation, without regard to what the land is doing in between. So, if we were to have a 140-foot-tall hill, we'd have a 10-foot clearance over the top of that hill, because the 150 feet is a flat surface, based on the elevation at the Airport. And that surface is called the Horizontal Zone. It's roughly circular. And I say roughly, because it is drawn from the end of the runway at either a 5,000-foot circle or a 10,000-foot circle, depending again on how the runway is used or Tiffs represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 40 anticipated to be used. So you get kind of a squared-off or lop-sided sort of--- Lehman/ That's not in the trapezoid--this is outside the trapezoid? Blum/That's outside the trapezoid, beyond. Lehman/OK. Blum/Yeah. That happens only when the trapezoids reach 150 feet high. Now there's some funny little stuff that goes on them, Ernie, because the trapezoids start at the elevation of the end of the runway and the 150-foot plane occurs from the nominal height, and those may not be the same, and in our particular airport, they're not. You know, we could get bogged down in that discussion for a long time. Have you seen the maps? Lehman/Not recently. Blum/The Zoning map. Did you bring a Zoning map, Al? There's one on file. If you look at the Zoning map, you'll see this sort of squared-off circle and if you look down on it, it's laid over the top of the image of the City which is not a real new one. But you get a pretty good idea. I think the map is dated from '94 or something like that. Kanner/Dick, what are the limits for the 5,000 versus 10,0007 Blum/If the runway is an instrument runway, the circle is drawn at 10,000. And if it's a visual runway, it's drawn at 5,000. You see, you draw these circles and then you connect the tangents and erase the inner parts. So you get these circles that have the squared-off tangents around them. Karmer/For instruments, in general, you need more space cleared? Blum/Yes, exactly. That's exactly the reason. There's more safety margin provided for instrument approaches. Pfab/Basically, because your visual is limited. Potentially limited. Blum/Yeah, well, the visual is--the troth of the matter is--when you can see where you're going, you don't need as much safety margin as when you can't, and that's the whole concept of an instrument approach is that you're operating when you cannot see where you're going, and you're depending entirely upon the instrumentation of the airplane. Kanner/But if there's no instrumental, if you can't do a visual landing, go to Cedar Rapids? Blum/That's one option. When you fly an instrument flight plan, when you file with your traffic control system, you select an alternate landing point. Sometimes the alternate landing point is where you came from. So, you know, you fly here from Minneapolis mhd you file for Iowa City, and if you can't land in Iowa City, you may say, my alternate is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 41 Minneapolis; I'll just go home. Or it might be Cedar Rapids or it might be Chicago or it might be Moline, or whatever that pilot determines is their best-bet alternate, and that often depends on the weather forecast. If both Iowa City and Cedar Rapids are forecast to have low clouds, most often they wouldn't file Cedar Rapids as the alternate because, chances are, they might not be able to get in there either. Outside of--oh, in between the runway side and the horizontal slope, there is this area here. It's called the Transitional Zone. In close to the runway like this, although the zone exists, it's relatively unimportant because, again, that's all un-Airport. But when we get out here to the sides, the Transitional Zone also comes out from the side of the trapezoid and that zone has a slope of 7:1, and because of the geometry involved, it's 1,050 feet wide at the sides of the runway. We're going to come back to it in a minute here and show it to you because it also exists beyond the Horizontal Zone. Out at the edge, the outer edge of this lop-sided circle, there's another zone, which is also a slope, that climbs at a 20:1 ratio. It goes out for another 4,000 feet. So, in some places we've got a 14,000-foot circle, other places we have a 9,000-foot circle. Now, Runway #2/5 in the new Ordinance is anticipated to have this precision approach slope. That slope is flatter, goes out at 50:1 for 10,000 feet, and then it continues on for 40,000 more feet at 40:1. So, it makes a total ora 50,000-foot approach slope. That goes on a long way; that goes almost to West Branch at 40:1. And then it has a transitional surface on the side of that slope, all the way out. But, of course, it's pretty high out here so the only things that would be affected by a lot of structures that would be affected by this area would be tall communication towers. So, that's sort of the general geometry of the plan. The significance of those trapezoids is that any structure which penetrates through the surface of that slope, whether it's a manmade structure or a structure of natural growth-a tree or even a bush--is by definition an "obstruction" and may be determined to be a hazard. Just sort of as an aside, the thing we're dealing with most these days is cell towers. We're getting a lot of cell tower construction all over the state, and it's potentially a big problem. Now, what we've been talking about so far deals pretty much with height, structural height. Now there's some other things in there that go on, but in addition to height, there is a concern with use. At the inner edge of each of these trapezoids, FAA has designated an area they call the Runway Protection Zone, and in our Zoning Ordinance, we call it a "Controlled Activity Zone." Emie, you've been around long enough to remember the Clear Zone term; we used to have what we called "Clear Zones." That's the same thing; the Runway Protection Zone used to be called the "Clear Zone." And the reason it was called that and the FAA still has this desire, that they would like to have no structures in those zones at all. Nothing. And, as a matter of fact, their expectation is that if the sponsor owns the land, which Iowa City does in a number of areas, that that will be the pattern you'll find. And there'll be no structures in those Runway Protection Zones. There are some uses that commonly are allowed in areas where you don't own them. Generally, they're concerned about wildlife attractants and they're concerned about things that would interfere with normal movement of aircraft. They spend a lot more time talking about what you cannot do or what they would prefer that you would not do in Runway Protection Zones. Some of them are obvious; some are not as obvious. Golf courses, for example, the big thing about golf courses is they tend to attract geese. Geese, for some reason or another, like golf courses, and geese and airplanes don't mix very well. They do list, specifically list these five uses as places of public assembly, which are not allowed, and then they add This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 42 sort ora catchall, anything of a similar nature. We've done a little more to develop that out in the Ordinance, but basically, we're doing the same kind of thing. We're saying we're not trying to list everything that you can or cannot do; we're trying to give you examples and have you follow the examples. We know that as certain as we try to make a comprehensive list, we'll leave something out, or some new use will come along and we'll not have anticipated it. Then, lastly, would be obvious: no residential uses. Very few things are cast in stone in this business, but this is one of them. You will remember, I am sure, many of you, that there was a time when we did allow an incompatible use, in a- -at that time it was called a Clear Zone--we got slapped real hard for that by the FAA; it cost us a significant amount of time and money to get out of that. So, it's something we do need to protect. There are some other general concerns in the Ordinance. These particular things that might interfere with safe operations at the Airport are fairly obvious. Landfills are specifically not allowed within five miles. And some of the larger airports now six miles. That does not apply to Iowa City. And then an item which I know we'll talk about a little bit more in a few minutes--any other wildlife attractant within 5,000 feet. There is a notice requirement in the Federal Ordinance in Part 77. It governs any construction in the general vicinity of the Airport. It requires that the proponent file this notice--it's called the FAA Form 7460-1. Any contractor or person who does any work in the general vicinity of the Airport is familiar with it. It is required by Federal law of anyone who proposes to construct anything that penetrates a rather flat slope, much flatter than anything in the ordinance within quite a distance of the Airport. That takes up much of the City, the 20,000 feet, goes north up to just about to Church Street. And that is a Federal requirement. Oh, and one other thing that's required is any structure which is more than 200 feet above the ground anywhere is required to file notice. That's why many of the cell towers are built at 199 feet, just to avoid that requirement. A 30-day notice is required to the FAA, and there are some exceptions, which we can talk about if you want to, but in the Ordinance we're requiring a copy of this notice be provided to the City in some zones, the Critical Zones, particularly, the Approach Zone, the Transition Zone, Contolled Activity Zone--not in the Horizontal Zone and not in the Conical Zone. OK. Shall we begin again? Lehman/Well, I got a question for you. Blum/Sure. Lehman/When I first got on the Council, which has been a year or two ago, I flew to Kansas City and at that time, the first thing Jan Monroe told us was there was not going to be an instrument approach to the Iowa City Airport. My assumption is that perhaps, GPS Systems have changed all that. Is that correct? Blurrff Yes. I wouldn't say that it has changed it. The situation is everybody expects it to change as a result of that. And all the evidence is that it will change. And so we're presuming that it's going change. Jan's position still is that we're not going to get an ILS, which is a specific type of precision instrument approach. But, just recently the government completed a very critical test of the GPS, enhanced GPS System satisfactorily. They're talking about commissioning a series of test instrument approaches now and the potential This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21,2002 Council Work Session Page 43 for precision instrument approach, which is defined as an approach that guides you laterally as well as vertically. Right now, we've got lateral guidance but we don't have any vertical guidance. So, precision, by definition, gives you both. Now, an ILS would allow you to land when the visibility only gives you a half a mile of forward vision and as low as cloud level 200 feet above the ground. That's what is in place, for instance, at Cedar Rapids, and that's what the airliners will fly. Lehman/But if GPS system, if that is approved for an instrument, that will require the 50:1 as opposed to the--, 34:1 is what we would be required if we did not have an instrument approach, is that correct? Blum/A precision approach, yeah. Lehman/Right. Blum/Now, the reason that we're still planning for 50:1 is they haven't come out with another standard. There was under construction; they were a vision of Part 77 that had reached FAA's legal department on September 8th last year. Needless to say, that has not gone anywhere in the interim. Lehman/Well, just let me ask a question. How restrictive is this 50:1, and we're talking about Runway #2/5. How restrictive is that over a 34:17 What does that do to structures on either end of that runway as opposed to a 34:1 ? Blum/It only applies down to the one end. You fly to both ends--it only applies to the end that goes out over the river and over toward Gilbert Court--- Lehman/Over toward the Hills Bank, OK? Everything there is OK in 50:1. Blum/Yes. Lehman/OK. Blum/We don't get into any substantive obstructions until we get out near the Kirkwood Campus, and there's some towers out there. There are three towers. There are some trees that are listed as obstructions, and there's a pole or two that are listed as obstructions. Those are considered easily mitigated. Trees are real easily mitigated. Poles are considered easily mitigated. The cell towers get to be a little more complex. But even they, of course, can be relocated or the height can be changed. Lehman/One other question. The Master Plan and the indications of the FAA is that the north- south runway will not be maintained. Blum/The Master Plan calls for closing that runway--- Lehman/Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 2 I, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 44 Blum/...when Runway #2/5/7 gets extended. Lehman/Right, and then that would be reflected as well in the zoning, right? Once that runway is closed, the zoning offeach end then would come back to (can't hear). OK. Blum/As a matter of fact, we've significantly reduced the impact in the current Ordinance. Remember, I said earlier that we have three widths of primary surface. #7/2/5 is 1,000 feet; the other runway is 500 feet; the north-south runway is 250 feet. Lehman/OK. Blum/As a matter of fact, do you remember the discussions we've had about the bowling alley? Lehman/Right. Blum/By making it 250 feet wide, the bowling alley is no longer in the Controlled Activity Zone. Lehman/OK. Kanner/To continue what Ernie was saying about 50:1 versus the other ratio, the lower ratio. What things--what are some heights that could be built with the--in 30:1, you said? Blum/34:1 is the standard. Karmer/What could be built with 34:1 versus 50:1 ? What are some heights? Blum/Well, it depends on the distance from the runway. Kanner/Well, give me some different distances that, let's say, near Hills Bank and then farther out. Blum/Well, here's another way to answer the question. Generally speaking, within the City in that area, the absolute limit without a special exception--without getting special permission (laughter)--what time is it? Lebanan/You've still got three minutes. [llum/OK. Is a 35-foot-tall building. OK, so--- Kanner/Is that under the Airport Zoning? Blum/No. Under City Zoning. Kanner/Under ours, OK. 35-feet. Blum/Thirty-five feet is the standard height limit except in the central business district, the standard height--any other district where 35 can be exceeded, Karin? OK, so basically, This represents only a reasonably accurate n-anscription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 45 then if you multiply 35 times or divide 35 times by 100 you can get--- Lehman/1750 feet. Blum/Yeah, you get 1800 feet roughly from the end of the runway of 34:1 or less than that, 1650 feet, I guess. You can build a 35-foot-high building. But if it was 50:1, you would not be able to build that building there. You would have to go out--for the same height, you'd have to go out about 4,000 feet. Lehman/But. basically, what you're saying is that that part of the City is developed. As you're going over. So this really has no impact whatsoever? Blum/On future development? Lehman/No. I mean this doesn't, which, that was my point. If going to a 50--- Kanner/Ernie, I don't understand why it doesn't have impact? Lehman/Well, it doesn't have any impact because as you go farther off the end of that runway, the farther out you go, the taller you can build a building. By the time you get to the area of the City that's undeveloped, which is on the east side of town, you can probably build one 60 or 80 feet tall and you're only allowed to go 35 feet. So there is no impact. Blum/Right. Kanner/Well, but them are some areas close in actually that we might want to build, aren't there, and that--- Lehman/I don't think there's any part that isn't developed. Kanner/East of Riverside? Lehman/No. Yeah. Take the Hills Bank and goes northeast. There isn't a vacant piece of property anywhere in there. Not until you get clear out past Scott Boulevard. Kanner/How wide is it that--how much does it spread out? Does it go down to South Gilbert a bit? Blum/Yes. Kanner/How far down? Blum/The comer of the zone at the edge of South Gilbert is roughly, well, yeah, right about Stevens Drive. On that end. Kanner/Where is Stevens Drive? Lehman/Stevens Drive is south of the Hills Bank a little. Still, even using that trajectory you would still go out to Heinz Road before you came to anything undeveloped. So, literally, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 46 this has no effect whatsoever on development. Blum/Even if it were redevelopment on a given parcel, you'd still have the 35-foot limit. Lehman/Right. Kanner/Well, actually, not. I mean, there are exceptions. If we do, we're building, because of Sensitive Areas, I'm thinking also in that area. I don't know if it affects Sand Road area, the prairie. Lehman/No. Kanner/We might want to make exceptions. Blum/No that area is--- Lehman/ That's way south of there. Karmer/Could we get a map by tomorrow again? Blunv' Yeah, we have a map. Lehman/We have the hearing. It'd be nice to have the map. Blum/We do have the map for the hearing. Would you want to have the map projectable? Lehman/Well, it'd be nice to have--- Vanderhoef/It could just go on the TV. Kanner/Yeah, for the audience it would be good, and also, I think, a paper one for us. Both, I think. Champion/I'd like mine three-dimensional. (People laugh) Lehman/We'd like to go up in an airplane and have you show us. Blum/Absolutely, I'd like that, too. Let's do that. Vanderhoef/OK. Just practical. Kanner/Dick, is that possible to get that? Blum/There are--do you have the map in your office? We'll have to look at the map. You can see what it looks like and you can decide how many copies you want. I'm sorry. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 47 Vanderhoef/I'm thinking about the Aviation Park Commercial Area at the north end of the Airport and I'm also thinking about this area to the south of the Airport where the Dane property, the Davis property, where we are extending Mormon Trek. What do we have in the way of height limits in those two areas? Blum/In the north commercial area, you're in one of those Transitional Zones where the land, the restriction is flat, for 500 feet from the center line of the runway. And then starts up at 7:1. That 7:1 hits the 35-foot-tall building limit 495 feet out from the edge or thereabouts, so we're talking about roughly 1,000 feet from the center line of the runway to the place where you can put a 35-foot-tall building. And that line appears on the North Commercial Area Development plat. And it's called the 35-foot Building Restriction Line. So if you look at your copy of the plat, you can see where that is. It cuts through the south bank of lots from near the back of the lot at the, for want of a better description, the west end, the end down toward Cub Foods. And it comes diagonally across that parcel to a point where it pretty much eats up Lot #1. So, if you were going to construct anything on Lot #1, you'd have to go below 35 foot. And the closer you get to the nmway, the lower you have to go. Lehman/But, actually, the restrictions on those lots are probably significantly less than the restrictions that are presently on Carousel Motors, Wal-Mart and Menard's; 35 feet, I mean, you could build, any of those lots probably have a 20-foot clearance. Blurrff Oh, yeah, probably--- Lehman/And very few commercial properties are built 20 foot taller. Blum/Yeah, I think that's right. I think when we were sort of pencil lining things in, we figured you could go back quite a ways before you--I mean, look at the sheds and storage facilities almost to the back of the lot. Lehman/And that probably is true on the south side of the Airport as well. TAPE 02-83, SIDE 1 Blum/With 1230, the width of the primary surface is only 500 feet wide, so you only have to come out 250 feet from the X before you set up at (can't hear). So, the structures there by the time you get on the other side of the creek, you know, you're--- Lehman/Two-five is the one that would have the biggest restrictions. Blum/That's the biggest (can't hear) Lehman/And with the hill where, like John Dane's home on top of the hill, probably--- Blum/That's actually out of any of the areas. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 48 Lehman/It is out of everything, which means that almost all of the commercial area will be, too, along Mormon Trek, but that's what we need the map for. Vanderhoef/Mm..hmm. Blum/Yes, I think you should. Franklin/Since you're talking about development around the Airport, one of the issues that I have raised with the Airport Zoning Commission is that of the regulation pertaining to the bird-strike hazards. Pfab/What? Franklin/That bird-strike hazards is how it's expressed in the Ordinance. Pfab/OK. Franklin/And the regulation, I believe, is that you can have no bird-strike hazard within 5,000 feet of the end of any runway. Well, 5,000 feet is obviously almost a mile. What that means is that as we look at storm water detention, if we have any areas, where we have wet-bottom basins, such as Carson Lake, that that would come into conflict with the Ordinance. Now, there am ways to mitigate that in that you put devices within the detention area that are going to deter birds from landing. O'Donnell/Like hunters. Lehman/Hunters. (Laughter) Franklin/Yes, we're going to put the two of you in a raft. O'Donnell/Been there, done that. Franklin/And you must be there always. (Laughter) It will add potentially to the cost of those detention basins. And, I mean, Carson Lake is one where we've looked at a regional detention basin, and then what we'll have to do is incorporate into the construction of that basin something which will deter birds from landing. Lehman/How about the Wolf's Pond down there now? Franklin/Well, that's existing; so's the Iowa River. And Wolfs Pond is static and so I don't know whether birds land on that or not. But, as I understand, that becomes the issue is when you have bodies of water in which they are not moving like the river does, and that flocks of birds will land on these bodies of water. The detention basin behind Wal-Mart is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 2 I, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 49 an issue. And that was an issue when we went through that development process and there was something that was supposed to be done with that which evidently got lost in history. At any rate, this is just something, you know, to keep in our minds, that it's kind of a, you know, a conflict here between what we're trying to do with the Airport and what we're doing with storm water management. It is resolvable but what it adds is a cost to those wet-bottom detention basins whether they are publicly built or privately built. Lehman/What happens on South Sycamore. We're very close to--- Franklin/ South Sycamore is there, that regional, it's there before this is adopted. Lehman/So it would be grandfathered in. I like that "grandfather" word. Franklin/Mm..hmm. Vanderhoef/Like the golf course, too. Franklin/Yeah. And I mean that one is problematic. I don't know how much that will draw flocks of birds. Lehman/I don't--it's pretty shallow. Franklin/It is habitat, but it's not something I don't think that's going to draw a flock of geese. Lehman/Too shallow. O'Donnell/And the geese we get here in the area aren't particularly deep-diving geese. Lehman/They're just skimmers. O'Donnell/They're surface geese. Lehman/Skimmers. O'Donnell/Skimmers. Vanderhoef/Dick, you'll have to use the mic. Blum/One of the reasons that I am told that the pond south of Airport does not draw a lot of geese is because it's so deep. Lehman/Afraid of drowning. Blum/Well, it doesn't create a food source that the geese can reach with a typical shallow dive. So, the things that attract geese and ducks are moderately shallow but not real shallow. But, you know, those water detention ponds behind Wal-Mart and Cub Foods are This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 50 relatively shallow--- Lehman/Right. Blum/...and there's a lot of birds that roost in there, because there's a lot of vegetation. O'Donnell/The big ponds on the other side of the river, going east? Blum/I'll tell you when they tend to congregate and you may have seen them, that pond, at one edge--but the main part of that is fairly deep--around the outlet from the treatment plant just north of the Highway 6 bypass bridge, you'll see a lot of waterfowl there. They like still water. They don't like to be carried away by the current. So they don't congregate in the fast-moving areas of the river. But where there's a back eddy, like up by City Park, along the inside edge where the water's moving very slowly, if at all, you'll see them but they won't go out--- Lehman/Karin, are there any other issues that we have to deal with other than water? Franklin/No, I--- Lehman/ It appears that most of this (can't hear)--- Franklin/ I think that's the only one. Runway #7, which is the old #6. That's the southwest. That was one I was concerned about, but the regulations don't change from what we have right now. Lehman/That's two-five, right? Franklin/Right, the other end of 2/5, 7/2/5. So Runway 7 is at the end where any regulatory measure off the end of that runway is going to affect development around Mormon Trak and Highway 1 intersection. Lehman/So, basically, the height restrictions that would be opposed by the Zoning has little or no effect on anything that we've got going on. Franklin/From what I can tell. Lehman/Unless somebody wants to put up a 300-foot cell tower inside the City limits, which (can't hear)--- Franklin/We did have some concern about Plaza Towers because of a communication they had received from FAA indicating they could build at a certain height, which with the base of 684 and 150 feet above that, it's about 2 feet short of what FAA had indicated they could build at. However, the architect has met with the Airport Zoning Commission and was there at their last meeting and it appears that they're going to be able to work through that, that they have enough flexibility. But it will--it means that there is a cap, that it puts This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 51 on development downtown. Lehman/But that's a pretty tall--- Franklin/ That's a generous one. Yes, it is. Given what we've had to date. Lehman/Karin, now, you're, I'm sorry, go ahead. Well, you're familiar with this. Do you have any problems with this? Franklin/Mm..nnn (negative). Lehman/I don't see--- Franklin/The bird strike is the only thing. O'Donnell/I don't see any problems with it. Champion/Karin, what do you do to water to keep birds from congregating in it? Franklin/Well, I don't know, because I know the fountain things don't work. At Wellington Condominiums, for instance, if we had something like Wellington Condominiums come in within this 5,000 feet, that would be problematic because those ponds have aerators, and it's probably more for mosquitoes and stuff like that. There are a lot of waterfowl in those ponds now, I mean, flocks of geese that are there. Lehman/Right. Vanderhoef/So, what we're saying there then is that there really isn't any change from the old Zoning Code in this new one that changes the Protection Zones or regulating heights? Franklin/No, that's not correct. O'Neil/No, I think that's understating it. Franklin/Yeah, Runway #2/5, the 1:50 slope is a definite change from the 34:1 that we have right now. The 50:1 is a flatter slope than we have right now, which the current one is 34:1. Lehman/But it doesn't impact anything. Franklin/As far as we know, it does not impact anything. You would have to be quite close to the Airport and you would have to have a high piece of ground for it to be, to have a significant impact. Now, we haven't looked at every single property with every single first-floor elevation to determine that it's not going to affect anyone. I mean, it does flatten it down. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 52 Lehman/You need to talk in the mic, Jerry. Don't trip and fall. We don't have insurance for people who talk on Monday nights (laughter). So if you fall, you're on YOUr own. Do you fly, too, do you? Jerry Full/ I do. We had a discussion with the Airport Conunission about this, of having a more restrictive area out there, and I was--my thought is that we're not going to get a precision approach. That's just my personal opinion, and I said to the Airport Commission, if five years down the road it looks like we're not going to get a precision approach and somebody wants to build a larger structure off the end of that runway, we could change the Ordinance at that time. Lehman/Yeah, but it seems to me that the Airport is a significant investment in the community, and as long as we're not impacting anything now with the 50:1, we probably would continue to protect that, because heavens knows, with technology the way it is, you let them build it in five years and eight years later you find out that if you'd have kept it, you could allow it. So, I mean--- Full/That option is there. Lehman/My concern is that impacting existing structures, which apparently we do not. Franklin/I have to qualify this, Emie. I have not looked at every single--- Full/ Well, there's that tower out by (can't hear)--- Blum/Well, what will happen, for instance, if a tower penetrates, it will be allowed to stay there but it becomes a permitted nonconforming use. So, you know, if it gets destroyed by lightning strike, they will not be able to reconstruct it if it's like more than 50 percent, you know that whole routine. Now, you're telling us to ask the question about what you might do with ponds, and Karin had brought up the fact that it might be costly. There are some things that can be done. Large waterfowl need horizontal space to be able to take off and land, kind of like airplanes. So, what other jurisdictions have done is string cables across ponds, low-down, to disrupt that ability (laughter). That's right. Some places have put lots of posts in the water to disrupt the surface. Some have actually laid what amounts to horizontal chain-link right at the surface of thc water. You don't see it, but it essentially prevents the waterfowl from landing there. But those could--especially in a large, you know, pond--those could be pretty expensive. But it is certainly something that FFA is very concerned about because bird strikes are, you know, obviously, are a serious problem. And, Dee, there's another answer to your question as well. There are some administrative things that have changed in the new Ordinance. For example, I mentioned that the City must receive a copy of that Federal 7460 before it can act in certain zones, and I also mentioned that there's a 30-day period that you must, prior to any construction, you must file that form. Vanderhoef/And what was it before? This represents only a reasonably accurate h'anscription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 53 Blurn/Well, I suspect that, I don't know that there's been any limit to getting a building permit, if you came in w/th all the i's dotted and the t's crossed, I think you got a building permit in a relatively short time, a matter of a few days, maybe less than that. So, what this is going to have a practical effect on is that people who want to construct in those zones will have at least a 30-day wait. Now, the truth of the matter is they're required by Federal law to give that notice, without regard to whether we had this Ordinance. So, I guess what we're doing is helping those people not violate Federal law. Lehman/You're just consistent with the Federal Law. Blun'ff Absolutely. Vanderhoef/So, what we're saying at the City level for our staff and everything else, the first time someone comes in and is even remotely interested in a property in one of our new Commercial Zones, it's called go get your--- Blung Absolutely. File that permit. Vanderhoef/...file the permit. Blum/It's not actually a permit. It's a notice. File that notice. Vanderhoef/OK. Blum/Which they should be doing anyway. But, you lmow, I think, we need to be aware of the fact that we are now codifying that requirement within the City as well. I personally don't see that that is any disadvantage to anybody. Vanderhoef/No. Blum/As I said, I think we're really helping in a sense the citizens of the City to conform with that requirement. Champion/Well, I think since they've made the decision to keep the Airport where it is at, and they've obviously put a lot of money into it in recent years that we must maintain the ability to make it an instrument landing. It's foolish not to. Franklin/Oh, yeah. Lehman/All right. Vanderhoef/I don't want to skip on the--- Lehman/Anybody else have any questions about air--we learned more than we ever wanted to know. The only ones I'm not sure about are the waterfowl and we'll work on that one. Are there other questions about, pardon? Are you hung up on the chain? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 54 Blum/Never mind. Lehman/You got caught in the cable? (Laughter). All right, Richard, thank you. Wilbum/Thank you. COUNCIL TIME Lehman/Hey, guys, Council time. Anything? O'Donnell/Tomorrow night. Lehman/Tomorrow night. O'Neil/You didn't answer the question--do you want that map? Lehman/You know, it would be very helpful, frankly, and I don't know that you can produce it between now and then, but if that map were to have the streets and build--if that were superimposed over a picture, would that be a lot simpler? Blum/Well,--- Lehman/ I don't have a problem. We've established that where, that it really does not impact. So I don't have a problem with it. But I did want to see the map to determine that. BIum/We talked about whether or not we could use a picture like that and put it on there, and technically I think we could do that, but it's involved. And no, we wouldn't be able to do it by tomorrow. We could ultimately do it. I--- Lehman/ Well, just a second. Are there Council people who feel we need that after having determined that this has no impact on any structures? I have no problem now that I can see that. Blum/I can get this one done, I think. Pfab/Is it possible it could be put on someplace where, if the public wants to look at, it will ali--- Karmer/Well, I think the point is, Ernie, that the public might come in and see that it might have some impact. So, I think it would be good to have something up for the public hearing if they do find, they might have some wisdom that we're lacking here. Pfab/But also it would be important--- Blum/Just post them on the wall? Is that--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002.. October 21, 2002 Council Work Session Page 55 Lehman/It has no impact that we're aware of on any existing structures. Champion/I think you're--- Kanner/You could say that, but they again, might have greater wisdom than us though it's hard to believe. Lehman/Well, then they'd (can't hear) Wilburn/All right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 21, 2002..