HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-29 Transcription#2
Page 1
ITEM 2 OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARDS -Lucas
Elementary
Bailey: Would the students from Lucas Elementary please come forward, and,
Connie, you can join me. So this is one of our favorite things that we do,
and thanks for being here. It's a really cold night, so I appreciate your
coming out, and I've asked, uh, Council Member Champion to come help
us do this, uh, because she, her district, is...has Lucas Elementary in it.
So, what I'm going to have you do is read your statements, and then we'll
present you with your awards. Why don't we start with you, and hold the
mic really close, okay.
Phillips: Good evening, my name is Tiara Phillips, and uh, this is my speech or
paragraph. I was honored to be nominated for this award and to receive it
is like a wish come true. I believe I was nominated because I have been
elected Student Council President twice. I try to give leadership to my
fellow students and do my best to aid them, as well. Also, I have been
studying Kung Fu for three years and I am considered a student teacher.
Teaching other children Kung Fu, I mean, teaching other children self-
defense is very important to me, and I hope it helps prevent someone from
getting hurt. Thank you to my family for always standing behind me, and
thank you to the City Council for this award. (applause)
Abrams: Hi, my name's Andrew Abrams and this is my speech. The things I did to
get this award are just things you should do in school -listen, work hard,
do your best, and follow directions. At school, I've tried a lot of different
things. Some I didn't like, some I did. I always try to help others and
listen to what they have to say. I try to work things out as fairly as
possible. I've learned a lot about honesty and fairness from my parents.
They've also given me a lot of good advice and helped me a lot. Thanks.
(applause)
Champion: I'm going to read the Citizenship Award. They both say the same thing.
For her outstanding qualities of leadership within Lucas Elementary, as
well as the community, and for her sense of responsibility and helpfulness
to others, we recognize Tiara Phillips as an Outstanding Student Citizen.
Your community is proud of you. Presented by the Iowa City Council.
(applause)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#3
Page 2
ITEM 3 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED.
Wilburn: Move adoption of the consent calendar.
O'Donnell: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? I am happy to
see that we are already talking about sidewalk cafes. I think that's a
particularly nice thing (laughter), thinking about the weather today. Okay.
Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#5
Page 3
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
b) CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4.40
ACRES OF LAND AT 2815 ROHRET ROAD FROM LOW-
DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-5) TO
COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO-1) (REZ07-00016)
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Bailey: This is a public hearing. Public hearing is open (pounds gavel) and I think
we'll start with disclosure of ex parte communications. The...do any
Council Members have any ex parte communications to disclose? I spoke
with, um, Amy Charles regarding this. She sent me an email, um,
expressing her concern about this rezoning, and we met and discussed her
ideas about, if it were rezoned to commercial some of the things that
should be there. I also spoke with Planning Director Davidson about, um,
to see if she had spoken with any of the members of the staff regarding
this. So, that's my...let's start with the staff report regarding this.
Davidson: Thank you, Madame Mayor, uh, the proposed action on this item is to
rezone the parcel of property you see here. It's approximately 4.5 acres
from residential single family RS-5 to community, excuse me, commercial
office CO-1. Uh, that is the proposed action, and uh, couple of things
right up front. The developer did use the good neighbor policy with this,
uh, proposal and it having a neighborhood meeting on December 61h, and
it is my understanding, and have also fielded some phone calls, uh, and
had some interaction with the, uh, neighborhood on this particular
proposal, uh, the current zoning of this parcel would allow approximately,
uh, ten single family residential units. ITh, the proposed CO-1 zone
allows, obviously, offices and personal service businesses. Also important
with respect to this proposal is that dwelling units are allowed, uh, as a
provisional use on the second floor of the office or commercial use that
would be allowed in the zone. Um, this zone is frequently used as a
transition zone between a lower intensity residential use and a higher
intensity, uh, use such as commercial or industrial, uh, in east Iowa City
the Towncrest area is a perfect example of this, where the commercial
office area of the Towncrest area, uh, provides a buffer between the
single-family, and there's actually some multi-family residential, as well,
and the more heavily intensive CC-2 uses where the Hy-Vee is and the
convenience stores are, uh, along Muscatine Avenue. Um, with...let's
see, a couple of other things, uh, here you see an aerial view, uh, of the
parcel. You can see that there's an old farmstead here, um, we are not
aware of any information indicating that this property would meet any of
the criteria for a... a historic registry designation, so there is nothing in any
of the, um, conditions that are proposed for the parcel, which you'll hear
in more detail in a moment. Uh, there is nothing proposed in terms of the
preservation of these units, uh, the developer has indicated it is their
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#5 Page 4
intention to take the existing dwellings down. Um, with respect to the
Comprehensive Plan, obviously that is an issue in this area. If you go to
the Comprehensive Plan map, it does show, uh, residential, uh designation
for this triangle. Um, oh and by the way, just, uh, for the purposes, this is
U.S. Highway 218, uh, this is Rohret Road, uh, this is Mormon Trek
Village, uh, development and this is the parcel that is proposed for the, uh,
rezoning action. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan, if you then go to the
Southwest District Plan, which I think all of you are aware, we are in the
process of doing district plans. There are ten of them altogether. I think
we're on the sixth one right now. We have done a district plan for this
area of Iowa City, the southwest district, and it does indicate that because
of the existence of U.S. 218 that this parcel could be appropriate fora CO-
l type use, um, that...that would be appropriate given the sensitivity of
single-family residential to the noise that is generated by the, uh, by U.S.
218, and so basically we're treating U.S. 218 as the industrial or
commercial use that generates the noise and the traffic and that sort of
thing, and that the CO-1 use is seen as a buffering type use to the, uh,
residential that you see, uh, in the already built out, uh, area here. Um,
however, we would propose, and again, I'll outline those quickly in just a
moment, but we would proposed that there be conditions, uh, if you do
consider the rezoning, that there be conditions placed on the development
of this parcel. Um, also wanted to just quickly highlight environmental,
uh, features of this. There is a, actually I've got a...well, actually I want
to go...okay, this is kind of hard to see, but you can see the topographic
lines. If I then go back to the, uh, aerial here. There...there are some
steep slopes in this area, as well as, uh, some groves of trees as you can
see here, and I think that picture I went by quickly there you can see very
clearly, this is from across the highway, the other side of the highway, uh,
the trees were conveniently coated with ice the day that this picture was
taken, and so they stand out very clearly, uh, and we do call for the
preservation of, uh, the trees on the property in order to again buffer the
proposed use from the interstate, and that is one of the conditions that we
are calling out. Um, there...there is not anything that generates...there
has not been a strict evaluation under the sensitive areas' ordinance
because the developer has indicated that their intention is to preserve these
environmental features that...that are shown here. Um, in terms of traffic
and pedestrian facilities, the site is, uh, suited to the, uh, proposed
rezoning. LTh, the, uh, traffic volume on Rohret Road is significantly
below the capacity of that street, um, the, uh, sidewalks are in place so that
there's good pedestrian access. Of course the City a few years ago built
the pedestrian bridges that you see here, so there's very good pedestrian
access in this area, and all the sidewalks were put in when Rohret Road
was, uh, reconstructed approximately ten or fifteen years ago. Um, to
summarize then, we do feel that the CO-1 proposal is appropriate. The,
uh, developer has indicated a, uh, childcare center use is what they have in
mind, but obviously the...the approval of the CO-1 zoning would allow
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#5 Page 5
any CO-1 use that...that would be allowed. Um, we do have several
conditions which just very quickly, um, and I encourage you, don't look at
the conditions as they're listed in the staff report. Look at the conditions
as they're listed in the Conditional Zoning Agreement, because there has
been some...the staff report went to the Planning and Zoning Commission
and then there were some changes made in the conditions, so, just very
quickly, the existing healthy trees within eighty feet of Highway 218 shall
be preserved, uh, sound abating construction techniques will be used to
reduce interior sound levels, uh, to any, uh, window, door, vent opening
that is exposed to Highway 218, for residential uses on the property. Uh, a
minimum fifty foot setback along Rohret Road. Parking areas shall be
located behind the front plane of the building, except for, uh, passenger
drop-off/pickup area and a maximum of eight parking spaces...um, I
guess I do not have that shown, but a maximum of eight parking spaces in
the front for the, uh, childcare center use. That's something the developer
has specifically requested, and that there shall be no parking areas located
between the east property line and any building on the property. That's
because of the sensitivity with the residential uses in the Mormon Trek
Village area. LTh, and of course, these conditions would run with the
property if it was sold or anything like that. So, any questions?
Correia: Can you go back to the, the aerial photo? So, this last, um, the...there
would be some sort of required buffer between those, that Mormon Trek
Village? Explain...yeah.
Davidson: This area here, there would be no parking allowed...there, there are some
existing vegetation in the area here, there would be no parking allowed,
uh, in this area, um, I don't believe...yeah, the...the trees that are required
to be preserved are those within eighty feet of the Highway 218right-of-
way.
Correia: So, the...and I guess I don't know that vegetation...ifthereie trees there
or...
Davidson: Uh, I don't think those are (both talking) these down here, Amy, are, um,
some more significant trees. I'm not sure, I mean, that's obviously some
kind of vegetation, but I'm not sure that's nearly as significant as the trees
you see in this area through here.
Correia: So, beyond parking, is there any other required buffer in...
Davidson: Not as proposed. Not as proposed.
Correia: I mean, there's no other required buffer in our.. .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#5
Page 6
Davidson: Yeah, a lot of times what we try and do with a commercial use that's up
against a residential use is if because of the layout of the driveway or the
parking areas, particularly parking areas, if there's the opportunity for
headlights to be shining in windows, we require buffering. We don't
believe with the...with the requirements of how the parking has to be laid
out here, we don't believe that will be a situation with Mormon Trek
Village here.
Wright: So there's no, there is no screening requirement along there?
Davidson: There is nothing in the conditions shown here, no.
Correia: That's the word I was thinking of, screening. Thank you. Screening or
buffer.
Davidson: Now, there is screening that is required in just the regular zoning
ordinance.
Correia: Okay, well, that's...(both talking)...
Davidson: ...regular zoning ordinance, between commercial uses and
residential...I'm sorry. I should have clarified that. There's nothing in
addition to what the zoning ordinance requires that's called out.
Wright: What level of screening is...
Correia: Right, so, yeah...
Davidson: LJh, I'm sorry, I can't tell you, Michael, but I can certainly get that
information to you for subsequent readings of the ordinance.
Wright: Thank you.
Correia: And then is that...that assisted living facility up in the left?
Davidson: Uh, yes, on Shannon Drive, right.
Correia: Okay, and...our transit system does go out there?
Davidson: Uh, yes. They...now you know, I can't recall...I know they intend to go
out when Shannon Drive gets put through. I can't remember if they go out
there yet. They do with a special route that operates, um, kind of a
Westside loop type route, but I'm not sure the regular routes come out this
far, Amy, or, uh, yeah. Any other questions? I will check on the required
screening and get that information to you. Is there any, are there any other
questions?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#5
Page 7
Hayek: The...the extent of communication with some of the neighbors who have
voiced concerns about this, you talked to us about what your conversations
have led to. Have some of their concerns been allayed? Um.. .
Davidson: Well, I certainly...
Hayek: ...(unable to hear)
Davidson: Well, I believe you should hear from the neighborhood, in terms of if their
concerns have been allayed. We have had a number of conversations with
them, the developer has had conversations with them. Whether or not
there, uh, concerns have been, uh, addressed, I think you should hear that
from them.
Hayek: Oh, I'm sure I will.
Davidson: Any other questions for me?
Correia: I just have a...this, does this seem similar to you, to the...neighborhood
composition of the Old Town Village, that that's CO-1. Is that...with
Blackstone and...
Davidson: Yeah, they're...there are some, some similarities there, um, I believe Old
Town Village is a CC-2.
Correia: Oh, so it's even a higher.. .
Davidson: Yeah, it is a higher, the commercial is of higher intensity, and there were
conditions placed on that development for the existing residential area
across Scott Boulevard, but that is a CC-2 use.
Correia: So that's a higher.. .
Davidson: A higher intensity use than this. Yeah, that...the CO-1, the commercial
uses allowed in the CO-1 are of lower intensity in terms of the traffic they
generate, the parking that's required, the signage that is allowed -all those
sorts of things are much less intense, uh, when you compare the CC-2
zone to the CO-1 zone. Any other questions? Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you. Other items for the public hearing? Other comments?
Charles: Hi, I'm Amy Charles. I live at 1346 Shannon Drive, and let's see
here...um, when...when I heard that, uh, that there was a request to rezone
this property to commercial I was surprised, and when I, um, when I went
around talking to neighbors about this, I was surprised again by the force
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#5 Page 8
of the reaction that I heard against it. Um, many of the people I spoke
with were quite angry, um, and again, mostly just surprised that in our
neighborhood, which is quiet and residential that there would be a request
to zone a residential property for a commercial use. Um, Jeff spoke about
the Southwest District Plan, and I...I think it might be as well to start with,
actually it's on the City's web site right now, about this parcel, because it
did come up for...for special consideration. And this is what's on there
now. Um, it says a triangular shaped area of approximately 4.5 acres
located south of Rohret Road and northeast of Highway 218. Contains a
potentially historically farmhouse. If this property is further developed, it
maybe appropriate for a cluster development that incorporates the
farmhouse as a reminder of the agricultural history of the southwest
district. Residential development on this property should include a
landscape buffer along Highway 218. Alternatively, this site would be
appropriate for low intensity non-residential use, such as a childcare
center, a small religious institution, or a fire station. Now, I would like to
point out that all of those things are already provided for in the current
zoning in RS-5, um, including the daycare center that was discussed at the,
uh, at the Planning and Zoning meetings. Um, I understand the, well, I
understand two of the issues. One that it would be, it could be convenient
to have a wider range of uses available for somebody wanting to develop a
parcel, um, I do understand the concern that Planning and Zoning um,
brings up about the proximity to Highway 218. Um, I should say that to
those of us who live in the neighborhood, we do not experience it as akin
to an industrial area. Um, my house on Shannon Drive is fairly close to
the highway, um, and I can see it pretty plainly from my window. Um,
but I don't experience it as an intrusion. It's certainly nothing that, you
know, comes roaring down my street, um, I guess...that was really the
source of our surprise, that our neighborhood just seemed so residential
that we didn't really see why that parcel should be commercial. Um,
when I started looking further into it, I had the chance to see the
Southwest District Plan, which I had not seen before, and what I see there
is on the other side of 218, which you just really have a little piece of right
there, there is actually a, a concept plan for a large new development for
whenever that land is eventually sold, that does incorporate a commercial,
a neighborhood commercial district, and from the description of that
district, um, it...it really goes back to that, um, what do you want Iowa
City to look like, said at meetings that we had. I think back in 2002. Um,
and it describes sort of a very handsome, um, shopping and commercial
area, with some, um, some multi-family and smaller homes mixed in, and
then beyond it more single-family housing. Um, so I guess, you know,
looking at that I didn't really see why we would really need another
commercial area right over there. Um, I have...I have given Eleanor a
packet of petitions against the rezoning, and they represent I think most of
the, um, most of the homeowners who actually live adjacent to that
property. Um, we value the residential feel of that neighborhood, and we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#5 Page 9
would like to see it kept. Um, I think at this point I will just let, um, other
neighbors speak, uh, about the rezoning, but I would be happy to answer
any questions. Oh, actually, I'm sorry. I'm not done. (laughter) Um,
yes, I talked with Regenia, uh, a little while ago, recognizing of course
that you guys might well decide to rezone anyway. It had occurred to me,
um, when my daughter was small that we had a real deficit in the
neighborhood because we don't have a, um, a community meeting space.
There's no school on that side of the bridge. There is, um, there's no
community center. Frankly, there's not even a park on that side, um, and
what I found was that we had a lot of small families in the neighborhood, a
lot of young families in the neighborhood with small children, but we
seldom actually got to meet, especially once the weather got cold and
everybody stayed inside. And so what we got was a lot of isolation. Um,
and I thought to myself, you know, if this parcel must be rezoned, um,
then I would ask you guys to consider looking at it as how, how a
commercial property could benefit the neighborhood, could benefit the
community that it exists in. Um, perhaps by developing a sort of
commercial use that incorporates community space. And I went looking
around for, um, for business models that actually did something like that,
you know, recognizing that we probably would not be putting in a, a city-
funded community center or anything like that there. Um, and I did find
some...some models. In fact, there is something called a play cafe, which
apparently has gotten rather popular in California. Um, where it's...it's a
cafe so it's a commercial use, but um, it has a large, it has large meeting
areas. It also has large play areas for small children, which really sets it
apart from regular coffee houses, where if you notice families coming in
with younger children, they tend to sort of perch because as soon as the
kids get loud you really have to get up and leave. So I thought something
like that, or some... some other use that really provides community space,
rather than a...a business service that interested people in the community
just might happen to come and use, like for instance a pet groomer if you
happen to use a pet, you would come to the groomer. Um, but if it were a
community space, that somehow worked as a commercial use, that that
might be something valuable, and something that would really benefit the
neighborhood, and perhaps in turn benefit the city, since what you would
have is a lot of people with a lot of resources and creativity and education
and interest in the city, um, meeting each other and being able to talk. All
right, so now I'm done, and I will let (unable to hear).
Bailey: Thanks, Amy. Others who would like to speak to the public hearing?
Wibemeyer: Hi, I'm Lucy Wibemeyer. Uh, I've been working with Amy and I echo
everything she says tonight. Um, I just wanted to say, and just reinforce
what she's already said, um, the Southwest District Plan calls for that very
big commercial development just to the west of 218, so I just think this
property would probably be pretty unlikely to, um, receive or to actually
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#5
Page 10
have someone who would be interested in it, once that's developed. Um,
it's a...if you have to preserve all those trees that I see, and all those trees
back there, it's a very odd-shaped lot, and um, and it has to set back, so
it's not going to be very visible, so I'm not sure what business would want
to settle there, and so if we don't have a business that settles there, then we
have an empty storefront that may have some safety concerns. The other
thing that's come up is the traffic street on Rohret. I live further down the
street, and um, it's, I don't know if you've been out there in the morning
or when people are coming home from work, so depending on the use of
this facility, if it was a childcare facility, you know, anyone who's been
involved with childcare facilities, you know how crowded those places
get. Um, traffic is going to back up on Rohret. I don't know when
Shannon Drive is going to go through, but the only ways out right now are
to take that street through Mormon Trek Village, or take another curvy
one that ends up at the Kum n' Go station. Um, the other...the other fact I
want to bring up is this is just, the location is right after the bridge. I
worry a little bit about visibility, um, and then the backup that might occur
with traffic going in and out, backing up over the bridge. And uh, we
liken it kinda to the Kum n' Go situation. The Kum n' Go station is
further around the corner, off of Mormon Trek, and the traffic around
there is, it's really horrible to get out of that Kum n' Go and it certainly
has a, uh, it's...it causes a traffic jam at times in the station itself. Um, I
guess those are my main points. Yeah, I guess that's it. Thank you.
Bailey: Thanks. Others who would like to comment?
Schelling: Hi, my name is Christy Schelling. I live at 1356 Shannon Drive, and
when I was looking to purchase a home, I did look at quite a few homes as
most people probably do throughout the city, and I did chose my home
because it was in a nice residential area, and I'd really, really...I'm
concerned that it stay that way. Um, just many of the concerns that I have
have already been addressed as well, but I just wanted to speak up as well
and say that, um, I'm also very concerned about the rezoning.
Bailey: Thanks for your comments. Anyone else?
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Champion: So moved.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. All those in favor say aye.
Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#5 Page 11
Correia: So is there...there's nobody here from the applicant for the rezoning? Is
that correct? (unable to hear person away from mic)
Bailey: Public hearing is closed (pounds gavel).
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST
CONSIDERATION)
Bailey: Um, we need a...
Champion: I'd like to move to defer this, um, to defer first consideration, until I have
time to read the petition that was given to us.
Karr: The...if I may clarify. The petition is the standard format that the other
petitions you have in front of you are.
Champion: Oh, okay.
Karr: The only difference would be the signatures, but I understand if you want
to review the signatures.
Champion: I do want to review them.
Dilkes: Let me just...let me just clarify for...particularly the new folks, um, Iowa
Code provides if...if there are protests to an application for rezoning filed
by, I believe it's 20% of the people within, or of the property within 200
feet of the property to be rezoned, then that requires...in order for the
rezoning to, uh, pass requires asuper-majority vote, six out of seven of
you, as opposed to four out of seven. Um, so I think, uh, the deferral is
appropriate to allow us to figure out what we've got here, um, and see
what vote is required.
Bailey: Okay, so there's been a motion to defer by Champion, seconded by
Correia. Further discussion?
Hayek: The 20% figure has not been calculated.. .
Dilkes: No, because we just got the protests right now, right.
Hayek: Okay.
Bailey: Okay. Roll call.
Karr: It's a motion.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#5 Page 12
Bailey: Oh, okay. All those in favor of deferral say aye. Opposed same sign.
Okay, motion carries.
Karr: Is this deferral to the next Council meeting next week? The 5th
Bailey: Would that be adequate time to determine the 20%?
Dilkes: Yes.
Bailey: Okay, so deferral to the Stn
Champion: The citizens that spoke, I'm just curious, did they attend any of the
neighborhood meetings with the developer?
Bailey: You're going to have to come to the microphone.
Wibemeyer: Um, I guess I'm not considered in the neighborhood. Um, I live further
down the road, so I guess that's why I didn't know about it, but I did find
out about it by the sign that said if you had any questions you could call.
Bailey: All right. So we'll defer and have further discussion next week on this
item.
Charles: I just wanted to add, that yes they did send out a notice, um, there was not
a lot of notice, for a, being able to attend a meeting, but they did send
word, yes.
Bailey: So can we get some more information about that neighborhood meeting
from the developer? That seems to be of interest to people, as well. Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#7
Page 13
ITEM 7 APPROVING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF
CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE IOWA CITY WATER FACILITY
IMPROVEMENTS DOUBLE TEE ROOF BEAM FRP REPAIRS
PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO
ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO
PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME
AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.
a) PUBLIC HEARING
Bailey: This is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. (pounds gavel)
Public hearing is closed. (pounds gavel)
b) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
O'Donnell: Move the resolution.
Champion: Second.
Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Roll call.
Dulek: Um, just a reminder we need to vote no on this because...we went with
number (several talking at once).
Bailey: Motion fails, 0-7. (laughter and several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#8
Page 14
ITEM 8 RENEWAL OF CLASS C LIQUOR LICENSE FOR ONE POOR
STUDENT INC. DBA ONE-EYED JAKE'S, 18-20 SOUTH
CLINTON STREET.
a) PUBLIC HEARING
Bailey: This is a hearing, and so first we will hear from the staff regarding their
recommendation on this.
Hayek: Before we do that, Madame Mayor, I need to recuse myself from
consideration of this item, um, my law partner in my law firm, has, um, on
two or three occasions over the last decade represented One Poor Student
Inc., um, I ran this by the City Attorney. Uh, she believes that there is not
an actual conflict, but we felt that, and I feel that, uh, to avoid any
appearance of any conflict, it would be best for me to recuse myself from
this.
Bailey: Thank you. All right. Um, let's hear from the staff first.
Rocca: Good evening. On January 18`h, you would have received a memorandum
from me, uh, recommending disapproval of the liquor license renewal for
One-Eyed Jake's, and before we get into some of the details of that, I
thought I'd provide you with a chronological order of events, the events
that basically brought us here tonight. And, uh, as we do that, when I
conclude with that, Deputy Chief Roger Jensen's available to answer some
of the more technical questions related to the provisions of the Code that
were cited, as is Fire Marshall Greer and of course, Assistant City
Attorney, Eric Goers is here to address matters of law. So, without any
further ado, I'll proceed. If you think back, um, actually the last two, two
and a half years, the Fire Department has had a number of discussions
with the City Council related to A-2 occupancies, alcohol serving A-2
occupancies specifically, and uh, you provided us with some direction
back in 2005 to, uh, to look at the A-2 occupancies, specifically
overcrowding, and since then, a number of things have occurred, but I just
wanted to give you a couple quick highlights of that, uh, we developed the
crowd manager program and implemented the fire safety evacuation
planning in the A-2 occupancies, and I believe to date, probably over 600,
uh, A-2 alcohol serving establishment employees have received that
training, and we've done some spot inspections, as well, uh related to the
overcrowding issues in these A-2 occupancies. And so I just wanted to
remind you of our ongoing dialog, and there's other things that I'll address
in here as well, but really for the purposes of tonight's discussion, the
events that started to unfold in August of 2002 had to do with the 2000
International Fire Code being adopted, establishing minimum stairway
widths requirement forty-four inches for assembly occupancies, and then a
couple years later, in 2004, August 2004, the 2003 International Fire Code
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#8
Page 15
was locally adopted. Again, maintaining those minimum stairway width
requirements. In, uh, January 2005 we had some dialog with Council
related to a captain of inspections position, which ultimately you did
approve, and that position was designed to work specifically with the A-2
occupancies and the programs that I previously had mentioned. And so in
August of 2005, one of our firefighters was promoted to Captain of
Inspections, and uh, he set out to accomplish the A-2 program
implementation. And it looks like it was in March and April of 2006
where the program was rolled out, and owner awareness training was
provided. In July and August of 2006, the spot checks of those
occupancies for overcrowding, uh, began. August, uh, 28th through
September 1St, 2006, twenty-one sessions of crowd control manager
training were delivered. Then in September of 2006 an ordinance
increasing fines for overcrowding passed through City Council with an
effective date of February 1, 2007. November 2006, Council had its first
discussion of increasing the built-in fire safety requirements for new and
existing A-2 occupancies, and I think you know we've made some
significant progress there with the built-in fire protection program
that...that is underway. November 30th, 2006, One-Eyed Jake's received a
Notice of Violation, citing the stairway width and the ceiling finish
deficiencies. February 9th, 2007, municipal infractions were issued to
One-Eyed Jake's, uh, for failure to comply with...with those, uh, citations.
As well, while I wouldn't offer it up as an excuse, I think it's certainly
something you should be aware of, that we've had some significant
turnover in the fire prevention bureau. Um, Fire Marshall Jensen at the
time was ultimately promoted to Deputy Chief, and...and John Greer
stepped up to become our new Fire Marshall, and shortly thereafter, the
Captain of Inspection position also turned over. We had an individual that
resigned, took another position elsewhere, and uh, Brian Greer was
promoted to Fire Captain of Inspections. And I offer that up to say that
Fire Code enforcement is...is technical in nature, and there is a certain
amount of learning, uh, as well as practical experience that goes on, uh, in
the enforcement and application of these codes, and so we have, um,
maintained, uh, Deputy Chief Jensen's presence in this, since he initiated
the original orders and has followed this from basically start to date, but
that turnover I think needs to be factored into the time frame that we're
looking here, as we examine the chronological order of these events. And
so, um, in July of 2007 Council passed the ordinance requiring the
enhanced built-in fire protection equipment for new and existing A-2
occupancies, and then ultimately, on October 16th, 2007, the 2006
International Fire Code was adopted locally, maintaining once again the
minimum stairway width requirement. Any question about the
chronological order of these events? The memo that I sent to you then on
January 18th of this year does, uh, set forth the provisions or my, the basis
for my recommendation to disapprove the recommendations for the liquor
license renewal. And that's due to the imminent life, health and safety
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#g Page 16
concerns as presented by violations of the International Fire Code, and
that's related to the means of egress with interior finish and fire stopping
requirements. The fire prevention bureau did conduct an inspection on
November 30th, 2006, and we noted the following violations: uh, there
was general safety the third floor ceiling, Class B finish was required, and
we had holes in the ceiling, certainly could contribute to the extension of
fire in the attic and concealed spaces. And the means of egress, stairway
width not being less than forth-four inches, and as noted in that
memorandum, the actual stairway width is thirty-eight inches. Once
again, we uh conducted a fire inspection on December 14th, 2007, and the
following violations were noted: the general safety, third floor ceiling
Class B finish being required. Once again, holes in the ceiling that could
contribute to the extension of fire into the attic or concealed spaces,
penetration through the north, the third floor north wall, fire stopping
required, hole in the way again may contribute to the extension of fire into
the attic and concealed spaces. Heat detectors on second and third floor
need to be replaced. And the means of egress, stairway width shall not be
less than forty-four inches, and as noted the actual stairway width is thirty-
eight inches. I think as you look at the chronological order of the events,
we were willing to, uh, sign off on the liquor license renewal a year ago
because of the dialog we had established with...with One-Eyed Jake's and
the, under the understanding that we would, uh, reach a code compliance
situation. iJh, that never occurred, and hence, my recommendation to
deny the liquor license renewal application, uh, stands as submitted in the
memo of January 18th. Any questions?
Bailey: Questions?
Champion: I just want to confirm something that you said. So, a year ago, um, One-
Eyed Jake's knew they were going to have to correct this? And so you
renewed their, you...
Rocca: We signed off on the renewal.
Champion: That was a year ago.
Rocca: Correct.
Champion: Thank you.
Bailey: Other questions for the Chief? Thank you.
Rocca: If there's nothing further, I'll turn the floor over to Deputy Chief Jensen
then, he can talk in detail.
Bailey: Okay, thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#8
Page 17
Jensen: Good evening, Roger Jensen, I'm the Deputy Chief and uh, up until
February of 2007, I had opportunity to serve the City as the Fire Marshall
for eleven years, and so I have, uh, some intimacy with this issue in that I
was the Fire Marshall, uh, one of the primary responsibilities included
Code enforcement, uh, for eleven years, and during that time this, uh,
notice of violation was issued. So, uh, I have some familiarity with, uh,
the specific Code sections and uh, would be delighted to entertain your
questions. LTh, just a little bit more background for you, uh, One-Eyed
Jake's obviously is, uh, is a bar. One thing that separates it, however,
from other bars, and in our opinion, uh, relegates these violations to be
considered distinct hazards to life, is the fact that One-Eyed Jake's exists
on both the second and third story of a building. We have no other bars
that, uh, present that type of hazard in Iowa City. And as such, the two
outstanding violations, um, represent things that are very basic to fire and
life safety. One being the ability to get out of a burning building, so
egress, uh, issues or exiting requirements of the Code, and secondly, those
that relate to fire spread, and in this case, we're talking about holes and
ceiling finish on the third floor. Um, a little bit more about One Eyed
Jake's and assembly occupancies. Um, just so you know, seven of the
eleven deadliest single building fires in U.S. history have been in places of
assembly. And so we recognize that these buildings present distinct
hazards, uh, and it's because of the type of use that they present, um,
buildings, uh, bars rather, um, present significant life-safety hazards in that
they possess an occupancy level that's unlike any other. In no other type
of occupancy do we have that type of density, uh, of people. Also, it's
often times very dark, um, next to near-dark, um, very noisy with loud
noises, uh, alcohol is served so we have occupants that have different level
of alcohol on-board. All of this adds up to, uh, a slower ability for the
occupants to get out of the building. Therefore, greater emphasis needs to
be placed when you're looking at assembly occupancies at, uh, finishes,
such as ceilings and walls and also the, uh, of course, the stairway. So
those...those represent the, uh, the basis for the Fire Department's
determination that this does in fact represent a distinct hazard to life-safety
and warrants your favorable consideration for this recommendation. Any
questions right now?
O'Donnell: I'd like to know, um, talk about holes in the ceiling. What...what are we
speaking of, in the ceiling tiles itself or what is.. .
Jensen: It's actually a plywood, um, Mike, that, uh, there are a number of holes in
the ceiling that expose, uh, the ceiling joists, as well as the ceiling
members up above. And so the issue for fire becomes the laws of physics
will prevail, fire as you know travels up and out, and so the holes in the
ceiling, uh, enable two things to happen -one for the fire to develop more
rapidly, uh, endangering the occupants within, and also, uh, endangering
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#g Page 18
the properties adjoining One-Eyed Jake's. We know in the fire service
that any time a fire gets into a ceiling, uh, it's going to be, um, less than
desirable ending, and so therefore, adjoining properties become
endangered as well.
Champion: Is One-Eyed Jake's, does it have a sprinkler system?
Jensen: It does not.
Champion: Does it have another egress?
Jensen: It has two exits, yes.
Champion: And what about, um, grandfathering, Imean, is it possible to widen that
stairway, I guess that's my question.
O'Donnell: Is it structural?
Jensen: Is it possible? Anything's possible.
Champion: Well, of course, anything's possible. Is it...I mean, could it happen, well,
you know what I'm asking. Imean, do they have to...
Wright: Is it feasible is what you're...
Champion: Right, that's the word I'm looking for.
Jensen: Um, I'd just as soon let the, uh, the owner speak to that. I see the owner's
in the crowd here tonight.
Bailey: Well, regarding that, wouldn't another, um, option for that be to reduce the
occupancy, so a thirty-eight inch stairway would be appropriate.
Jensen: We'd have to go all the way down to forty-nine.
Bailey: Okay, so that seems a little infeasible for...
Jensen: Yes.
Bailey: Okay. All right.
Wilburn: In your point of view, what was the nature of the understanding of the
conversations you had with the owner, in terms of an attempt to come into
compliance with the deficiencies, in Fire Code?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#8
Page 19
Jensen: Well, we had hopes...we have been successful in the past in Fire
Department efforts to communicate, to explain, you know, why the Code
exists as it does, what the reasons are behind it, and then generally, uh, we
find people to be well-intentioned, and that they will do the right thing.
Unfortunately, we were not successful in this endeavor. We did offer, uh,
in writing numerous times to sit down and meet face-to-face, uh, to
entertain those discussions, and that has not occurred.
Champion: The other...I'm sorry, are you done?
Wilburn: No, I just wanted to say thank you.
Champion: Um, so the holes in the ceiling and the walls have not been repaired in a
year?
Jensen: Uh, the ceiling holes have not been repaired, that's correct.
Champion: And they've been there for a year, at least a year?
Jensen: That's...that is also correct.
Correia: And now there are additional holes in other locations? In the wall.
Jensen: I believe, Amy, that the wall holes have been repaired.
Correia: Oh, okay. What's the current occupancy?
Jensen: 299. Two hundred and ninety nine. One-Eyed Jake's would fit in that
category of one of the larger bars, uh, in our city. We...in our discussion
with Council when we, uh, brought the issue of sprinklering before you,
we categorized them basically into large bars being those at or around 300
and larger, and so this would fit in with one of the larger bars.
Wright: Do you happen to know the age of the building?
Jensen: I do not.
O'Donnell: And I think that's a very, very important point too, the older buildings had
narrower stairways. Are there...are there other thirty-eight inch stairways
downtown?
Jensen: There certainly are, Mike. Uh, the...the thing that separates the
requirement for One-Eyed Jake's to have aforty-four, is the fact that we
have, uh, this is an A-2 occupancy, this is a bar, the density of the
population, the use that's going on, it's dark, it's noisy, alcohol, and so
exiting is going to be slower, and the Codes recognize that, and therefore,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#g Page 20
the stairway width requirement, uh, does exist at forty-four inches. For
existing, as well as new.
Bailey: Other questions? Thank you.
Jensen: Thank you.
Bailey: Other staff members?
Dilkes: I'd go ahead and...and uh, let the license holder talk now, um, I...Eric is
here in case issues about the municipal infraction come up. I don't frankly
think the municipal infraction proceeding is relevant, but he's here in case.
Bailey: All right. License holder?
Kresowik: Hi, my name is Dan Kresowik. I am the Attorney for One-Eyed Jake's
and this matter, and I'll let Mike talk a little later, but I'm just going to go
briefly through some of the history and some of the Code requirements.
History, someone asked the question -the building is over 100 years old.
It's been used as a bar and a nightclub since the 1970's. This reporter has
owned it for approximately twenty years, I believe, since 1990. And I
must make clear that One-Eyed Jake's, One Poor Student Inc. rents the
space. There are two other businesses on the bottom floor, Big Mike's
which is now Milio's and then Baldy's. In the past, we've never been
cited for any problems regarding stairway width up unti12006. No
inspection reports have ever mentioned problems with stairway width.
The City's correct. In 2000 they adopted the 2000 International Fire
Code; subsequently the 2003 Code and now the 2006 Code. The Code
requirements have never changed. We were inspected in 2000, never
cited. 2001, never cited, and I'm talking about the stairway width
requirements here, the ceiling requirements. 2002, never cited. 2003,
2004, 2005, 2006 we were inspected I believe November 22"d, 2006, never
cited. Now, November 30th the City comes back, and all of a sudden they
allege there's problems with the stairway width. This is an obvious
stairway. This isn't. something we could have concealed. This is
something they can see every time they walked into the bar. No problem
for a hundred years, no problems last week, now there's a problem. We
did widen the stairway from I believe it's original thirty-two inches from
what we've learned from looking through the records, and in
approximately 1991 or 1992 to its current width of approximately thirty-
eight inches. So now that they've cited us November 30th, 2006, what had
changed? There was no change in ownership. No change in occupancy.
No change in use. No change in Code. No change in Code official. I
believe it was Inspector Stimmel who is no longer with the Fire
Department who cited us during November 22°d, didn't mention any
stairway issues, no ceiling issues. November 30th, apparently his name's
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#8
Page 21
on the report, it was Inspector Stimmel and Inspector Jensen. So, nothing
changed. We weren't going, undergoing any repairs, weren't undergoing
any alterations, and now the stairway has changed. So, the only thing that
did change is the City's now allegedly new interpretation of the same
Code provisions that have been in effect since 2000. And what are those
Code provisions? They say that there's aforty-four inch minimum
requirement for both new and existing buildings. And let me read you
what section 1001 says, which deals with means of egress. This Section
1000, goes up through Section 1010, all deal with means of egress. Says
Section 1003 through 1025 shall apply to new buildings, new construction.
That's 1003 through 1025. They cited us under 1009. Now, it says
Sections 1026 and 1027 apply to existing buildings, so we have to go there
in a second here, but just so it's clear. If the Code had wanted this 1009 to
apply to all new and existing buildings, they would have said so. They
only said new buildings. So we still have to look at 1026, which says
means of egress in existing buildings shall comply with 1003 through
1026, except as amended in 1026. 1026.10 has a specific requirement
addressing stair dimensions for existing stairs. Remember, we're dealing
with the width requirement here. Stair dimensions for existing stairs -
existing stairs in buildings shall be permitted to remain, if the rise does not
exceed 8.25 inches and the run is not less than 9 inches. Existing
stairways can be rebuilt, so they recognize, this is the Code drafters,
recognize, taking into account all the things that Inspector Jensen just
mentioned that it's a second floor building, third floor, it's dark, there's
alcohol. This is talking about One-Eyed Jake's, taking all these into
consideration, as long as the rise and rung meet those requirements, which
we do, existing stairs shall be permitted to remain. This is consistent with
the Building Code, Section 3410.6.11 deals with means of egress and
number for existing buildings. This is existing buildings again. Says the
width shall be determined solely in accordance with table 1005.1, not
having anything to do with 1009, which they've cited us under. Once
again, this is just a misinterpretation of the Code by City officials in a way
they've never previously interpreted it. Regardless of those sections, the
Section 1026 also contains an exception. The commentary provides that
this exception provides the most existing buildings. Says means of egress
conforming to the requirements of the Building Code under which they
were constructed, and this is where I believe Ms. Champion brought up
the grandfathering. Conforming to the requirement Code...requirements
of the Building Code under which they were constructed shall be
considered complying means of egress, if in the opinion of the Fire
Official they do not constitute a distinct hazard to life. Now, Inspector
Jensen just threw out this term "distinct hazard to life" a couple times in
his little presentation earlier. January 18th of this year is the first time the
City has ever asserted that this stairway problem constitutes a distinct
hazard to life. This, what...we've been involved in litigation since I
believe the issue with some initial infractions since February 9, 2007.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#8
Page 22
They never once said that this was a distinct hazard previous to the
January of this year. They did renew our liquor license, you are correct, in
the previous year. Now, the only time when it's a distinct hazard is when
our liquor license comes for renewal this year. So the City says there's an
imminent threat, a distinct hazard. They cite us November 2006. It's
almost February 2008. The City has the power to shut down buildings if
they can prove it is an imminent threat. We're not disputing that. They've
let this go on for fifteen months. They have no evidence that it is
somehow an imminent threat. It's...once again, what has changed in the
last year and a half? Nothing. So why now? I can't think of any
legitimate reason for them to interpret their Code in a way they've never
previously interpreted it. In addition to their misapplication of their Code,
they are selectively enforcing this provision against us. Once again,
someone earlier inquired as to whether there are other buildings in town,
specifically A-2 occupancies, which have stairways of less than forty-four
inches in width. I've got two letters from the City Attorney saying that the
Fire Department and Housing Department are unavail...or are aware of no
other buildings which have stairways under forty-four inches of width,
excuse me, no other assembly occupancies that have that. And I'll let
Mike talk about this, but in an hour after we got that email, he went out
and looked at other bars. He found, I believe, four or five within that hour
that have stairways less than forty-four inches of width, including one,
which is right next door to his bar, um, the Airliner, which was
reconstructed at a cost of approximately $1.3 million just a couple years
ago. Mike measured the stairways and he can tell you about this. The
stairways aren't forty-four inches. They were undergoing a
reconstruction. When there's a reconstruction, there's certain
requirements that do apply. Keep in mind, we weren't undergoing any
kind of reconstruction, nothing had changed. And yet, they're citing us
for this, and none of these other bars. So what are we asking? We're not
asking the City Council to determine the ultimate issue here. All we're
asking is that the trial was originally scheduled a couple times, it was
actually scheduled to go off about two weeks ago. We're just asking for
two months to let the judicial system resolve this issue. And I'll Mike
speak to that issue, if that's okay. I can take questions now or later.
Bailey: Are there questions for Mr. Kresowik?
Wilburn: Are you (coughing) excuse me, are you, um, are you, and I'll ask the same
of your client, are you saying that, um, there were no conversations the
last time the liquor license was up for renewal about trying to come into
compliance?
Kresowik: We...the City is well aware that we're disputing that this requirement
even applies to us. Um, yeah, there were conversations in that they sent us
an email saying we're not going to dispute the renewal of your liquor
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#8
Page 23
license at this time, knowing that we'd be going forward on these things.
The City's been aware, as far as the ceiling issue which is something I
should also address now, the ceiling issue, we are, as you are aware, the
City recently passed an ordinance requiring sprinklers in these buildings.
Some of these buildings I think by 2010. In our case, depending on the
occupancy. We're going to do the ceiling...the City has known this for a
long time...we will make the ceiling changes once we get the sprinklers
and we have to do some more electrical work and everything else. It's our
position that it wouldn't make sense, put in a ceiling, have to rip it out for
the sprinklers, and the electrical, and do that again. So...
Wilburn: What's your understanding of your client's conversations about whether
or not he acknowledged or made any indication of agreement that he
would work at the deficiencies that were noted?
Kresowik: He told them, from my understanding, and he'd be a better person to ask
since he had the conversations, that we would look into this matter and
then proceed there. We've got experts who are going to come at trial and
confirm our opinion that these requirements don't...um, apply to us so
there'd be no reason for him to make those changes.
Champion: Could you be specific...could you be specific for me on what
requirements you don't think you need.
Kresowik: The forty-four inch, we believe that's...
Champion: The stairway?
Kresowik: That's correct.
Champion: We're not talking about the sprinklers and the...
Kresowik: No, and that's still 2010. We've got estimates to do the sprinklers. We'll
go ahead and do those as soon as the ground thaws, as long as we're
permitted to remain in the building. You asked about widening the
stairway. The existing stairwell does not allow us to, um, move it.
Additionally, we only rent the space. We can't infringe on the rights of
the other lessees in that building. So there's really no means for us to do it
at this time. It'd also be cost-prohibitive. My understanding is, there's
structural supports running from the ground to the third floor of that
building, which according to the architect at least a couple, we can't do
anything except at a cost of $200,000, $300,000...Mike can tell you about
that, but...
Bailey: I certainly understand why you wouldn't want to repair a ceiling if you
were having immediate, um, sprinkler work done, but the thought that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#g Page 24
there were holes in the ceiling in 2006 and that you're going to wait until
you put sprinklers in and the deadline for that is...is 2010, it seems like
quite a long time to let something like that go, given, um, the extension,
the possibility of an extension to fire in the attic, and its impact on
neighboring businesses, which I find quite concerning, and...so can you
speak to that a little bit? That seems a tad bit, um, well, I'll use the word
reckless.
Kresowik: Until, as I said, January 18th when we received this letter, the City had
given us no indication that this was a problem that needed to be
immediately fixed. They had had no concerns as far as it being a distinct
hazard or anything. They're well aware that it's been our position the
whole time that we'll put these in when we do the sprinklers.
Bailey: So even at that November 30th, I mean, because the timeline I have and
these holes were noted, there was no discussion about the gravity of
concern that they might have?
Kresowik: Absolutely not. The first time we had any kind of indication where they
say "imminent" or "distinct hazard;" I've got all the correspondence going
back to then, was January 18th of this year. If they had told us something
like that, they had the power to shut us down back then if that had been the
case. They gave us no indication that that would be a problem that needed
to be immediately redressed. When the City inspects, as I believe they
did, which I just found out, in December they inspected us, there were
three other issues...there's always going to be some minor issues. One of
them was with a heat detector, which we had, which we weren't even
required to have, but if we had it, it had to be working. So we just took it
out and we're in compliance. I mean, there's little issues like that, so not
all of them are going to be imminent threats or distinct hazards. Until
we're aware of that, um, we never had any indication that we needed to
address this immediately.
Wright: Just for clarity; now, in the fall of 2006, you were found to have, you
know, the holes in the ceiling that we're talking about.
Kresowik: That's correct.
Wright: Um, and at that time, was there no indication that you knew the liquor
license, uh, contingent upon those being repaired?
Kresowik: Nope. They say that this time we're not going to contest it, and I've got
the letter with the...
Wright: But you just said "this time" we're not going to contest it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#g Page 25
Kresowik: Yeah. At this time we're not going to contest it.
Wright: Yeah.
Correia: But was there, I mean, my understanding from the previous presentation
was that there was the understanding that it needed to be dealt with, and
repaired.. .
Bailey: And the expectation that it would be taken care of.
Correia: ...expectation that it would be taken care of. And so you're saying that
that was not communicated, or you didn't understand that that was what
was being communicated?
Kresowik: No, and you can ask Mike since he was part of those conversations. I was
not part of those conversations, but they never mentioned anything about
this is something that needs to be addressed immediately. They've known
our position for the last year and a half on these issues, and until January
18`h, nothing on their side had changed.
Bailey: Thank you.
Champion: Is it possible that, you talked about replacing it with some specific thing,
but the hole has never been patched, until you do the sprinkler...you've
not bothered patching the hole? Is that correct?
Kresowik: Yes, and our position on that is if we're going to be kicked out for this
stairway anyway, which I mean we're confident...we're not giving our
experts' opinion on what the Code itself says, but if for some reason we
were, there'd be no point in investing $40,000, $50,000 in sprinklers,
fixing these holes in the ceiling and everything else.
Champion: So you're not willing to fix the holes in the ceiling, even though you're
open for business and you have a capacity of 300, uh, so the concern of
the 300 people, with the hole in the ceiling and the holes in the wall, and
the narrow stairway, and I know you have a wider stairway in the back,
isn't that correct? But, that's not worth the price of just patching the
holes?
Kresowik: No, we've had no...Mike?
Champion: Mike may have to answer that question for me.
O'Donnell: Could you tell me one thing? What's the cost of the, approximate cost of
the, uh, sprinkler system and repairing the ceiling?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#g Page 26
Kresowik: Mike might be able to testify to that, or we have one of, uh, the employees
here who's been dealing with the estimates on those.
Porter: Do I just sign in here? Okay, question on the holes. Um, that hasn't
changed in eighteen years. What they're talking about is the...the, uh,
roof over the top...the third level at One-Eyed Jake's, has exposed, um,
floor joists up there, kind of between the attic or whatever. It hasn't
changed in eighteen years. There is a hole there about the size of this
podium, maybe three by three, that you go through to get into the attic.
Um, basically they want us to put drywall underneath that, and I don't
know.. .
Champion: This isn't just patching it...
Porter: No, no, no, that's why I wanted...
Champion: Okay.
Porter: ...that's why I wanted to get up here. It's not just a couple holes that just
happened or this happened in the last year, um, forever it wasn't even
required and quite frankly, that's the one issue we're going to talk about in
court, it's not even required. That being said, we're going to do this. We
gotta get the sprinklers up into the...the rafters before we put the drywall
in, you also have to run all the HVAC through there and put all the
electrical in there, but that's been there for eighteen years like that. It's
not anything that I'm...just saying I'm not going to do or I'm not talking
through the side of my mouth or anything.
Champion: You answered my question.
Bailey: Well, I want to...I just want to clarify. So it's not holes in the ceiling so
much as it is attic access.
Porter: It's just the ceiling.
Bailey: Okay, so it's...it's a (both talking). Okay, okay.
Porter: Um, I would like to add something also on...on the distinct hazard, um,
this is also in the commentary to, um, International Fire Code, um, 102.1,
um, I'd like to read that. Afire code official must determine that a distinct
hazard to life or property exists, prior to enforcing a code provision
retroactively. Simply claiming that a violation exists because a building
does not comply with the most recent addition of code does not
necessarily establish that a hazard actually exists. In cases where
enforcement would result in substantial expenses to the property owner,
such a determination of hazard must be supported by adequate evidence
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#8 Page 27
that would be admissible in a court of law. That's the commentary on that
section. In other words what it says is the fact that it's not current code
doesn't make it a hazard. It's gotta be something well beyond that, and
they've got to prove that. There's gotta be some other case or something,
they've got, there's got to be evidence. Um, they mention, um, you guys
are all here throughout, well, um, five of you were, when we were talking
about all the fire, um, sprinkler safety and believe me, I was the one all
along going, `Yeah we need `em at Jake's.' Not denying that, and we're
basically scheduled to get that done here, you know, before summer time.
You know, as soon as excavators can get in and put the hole in, you know,
out to the street. But what they told you over and over and over again, at
every one of those meetings I was at, the meetings they held in the
Library. I was at the Board of Appeals meeting. I was at all these Council
meetings, and what they told you was, catastrophic fires do not happen in
buildings with sprinklers. They told you that over and over and over.
Once we get sprinklers in, that's going to take care of the life safety issues.
The second thing, uh, he told you I wanted to address the selective
enforcement. There's several other places with staircases less than forty-
four. First of all, International Fire Code does not talk about A-2
occupancies or bars or anything. It applies to all buildings. Not just bars.
Um, the only exception is if the occupancy is less than forty-nine. I think
there's exemptions. So anything over forty-nine has to conform. Um, and
that's to new construction. Uh, but you know, after they told me this I
went around and measured other buildings. I'm going to start with the
Jefferson Building. It doesn't meet height or width requirements. When I
walked down that staircase in the Jefferson Building, I have beams that hit
me in the nose. It's got to be eighty inches; I'm eighty inches tall. The
requirement's eighty inches. It's too narrow and too...too short. Um, I
know that's governed under the U of I, but apparently their fire
department doesn't think that's a life safety issue.
Champion: (unable to understand)
Porter: What's that?
Champion: Nothing.
Porter: Um, I just wanted to bring that one out, um, the Jefferson Building is an
eight-story building. Every floor in there is bigger than One-Eyed Jake's.
Um, but...
O'Donnell: (unable to understand)
Porter: What's that?
O'Donnell: How wide is the stairway?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#8
Page 28
Porter: How wide is it? It's...it's different dimensions all the way up through
there, but several... several spots less than forty-four inches. And like I
said, there's one...one beam that would hit me right in the nose. I mean,
I...I literally have to (laughter) to do that when I walk out. Um, but as far
as other bars go, um, Quinton's, which they say is less than forty-nine, so
that one may not apply, but Q Bar has atwenty-two inch staircase coming
out of the back of it. Twenty-two inches. LTh, 126 and The Loft bar has
an issue, and uh, Dan mentioned the Airliner. Um, they said $1.3 million
remodeling project. They gutted the place. They absolutely gutted the
Airliner. The front staircase is thirty-nine inches. The rear staircase is
thirty-six. LTh, yet the Fire Department saw no safety issues there. They
found no "imminent life, health or safety concerns" at the Airliner. That
was done two years ago. Now why are they addressing it, an identical
place next door to us, and...and to us, I don't know. Um, I really don't
know what the motives are there. Like he said, we have experts that will
testify to you, well, not to you guys, but in a court that this is wrong. I
mean, we have fire safety experts that don't even understand what's going
on here. Um, I guess, you know, I guess what we're asking you is to let
the court make the determination on this. We are meeting codes. There's
not a code violation with that staircase. It's not there. And fire sprinklers
will take care of any life safety issues, but I think that the court needs to
determine that. You know, if, uh, if Council acts before the court does,
and then the court rules that we've done nothing wrong, I...I think there's
a big problem there. That's why we're asking, um, and as far as the trial
goes, you know, we were scheduled to go quite a while ago, and the City
has filed continuances on this. And actually last week when we were
scheduled to go again, they missed the phone call to schedule the new
trial. Uh, most recently, uh, our trial was bumped, uh, about a month ago.
The, uh, they had a case that was scheduled Monday through Wednesday,
and we were supposed to be Thursday, Friday and the trial before us went
long, so they bumped us again, and then the City forgot to take the...the
phone call for scheduling a new trial, so it got delayed even further.
We've not delayed this trial. We want to get it done, taken care of, you
know, I want to go on with my business. So...any other questions?
Wilburn: What was your response to Fire Marshall, last time your liquor license was
up for renewal, when they brought up these deficiencies to you?
Porter: Once again, we don't think there is a deficiency.
Wilburn: What was your response to them?
Porter: My response to them is that our staircase is not deficient. It meets Code.
Um, the other problem is, I mean, not only will it cost more than $100,000
to redo that staircase, I have to get permission to remodel the business
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#8
Page 29
below me. I'm just, you know, you just can't intrude into someone else's
leased space. So we have more than one problem. It's not just, you know,
us standing there not wanting to do this. The other...the other issue is is
when we put that new staircase in in 91 or 92, it was a rise and rung
problem at that time. I don't know if you guys know what rise and
rung...it's the, yeah, the height of the step and the run, uh, we put a new
staircase in and widened it to thirty-eight inches at that time, and when we
did that, we also put the structural work in the building to, um, basically
reinforce all the levels in the building, and they butted that structural work
up against the staircase. That was all approved by the City when we did
that. So, there's steel I-beams that go all the way from the basement all
the way up into the building, and then there's also steel I-beams that are
sitting on top of it, you know, through the middle of the floors and all that,
so it...it's going to be quite a project to rebuild that staircase. And
basically that's what all the codes are telling you. The codes are telling
you that's why they don't mess with existing staircases. They're very,
very hard to widen in some cases, and this is one of the cases. I mean,
building code recognizes that and fire code. They both recognize that
staircases are hard to...to expand, and...and you know they gotta go to
that last thing of imminent life safety thing, and you know, the Fire
Department told you and told you and told you, catastrophic fires don't
happen in buildings with sprinklers. I...the sprinklers are what's going to
make that building safe, not four more, five more inches in the staircase.
Bailey: I just want to, um, sort of tag on to Ross' question. When you received
this information in November of 2006, you indicated...you indicate that
you said that there isn't a violation, yet it seems like the Fire Department
was under the impression that these things would be addressed, and went
ahead and...and your liquor license was approved. So, I...I'm not fully
understanding the different understandings of those conversations.
Porter: I think they knew that this was going to go to trial, that's...they let it go
through last year because the trial was going to happen shortly thereafter.
Bailey: Okay.
Porter: They...they knew that they were going to issue the citations before they
issued them, and the reasons they issued the citations was to force it to go
to trail.
Bailey: So you gave them no sense of, I mean, it sounded like there was a sense of
understanding that these would be appropriately addressed, and yet
that's...you're indicating...
Porter: I never once.. .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#g Page 30
Bailey: Okay, all right.
Porter: ...made mention to any Fire Department personnel that I would widen
those staircases, because they can't be widened.
Bailey: Or the holes or any of this.
Porter: The holes came up at a later, at a later time.
Bailey: The holes in the ceiling are also listed in the November, um, 2006 issues,
as well. So...
Correia: And that...with that timeline, when did we pass the sprinkler ordinance,
that was in the summer? After summer of 07?
Dilkes: Roger, can you address that?
Correia: July of 07? (several talking) So at the time of November 2006, when
there was a notation of the holes in the ceiling, there was in the
requirement at that time for sprinklers. Were you planning to do that
anyway? I mean, you talked about...
Porter: The ceiling, were we planning on doing the ceiling?
Correia: The sprinkler, before the ordinance went into effect?
Porter: Yes.
Wright: When was the lawsuit filed (unable to hear)?
Porter: What's...
Wright: The suit filed, against the City.
Porter: No, they, we didn't file a suit. They issued us infractions.
Dilkes: The municipal infractions were filed on February 9 of 2007.
Porter: I want to back up, if I can too, to Amy's question. I've told them for a
long time, I said if you get me water to that building, I will put sprinklers
in. I've been telling them that for five years, at least. And then, you
know, that was one of the agreements we came, we finally came to when
all the fire sprinkler stuff was going on. I...I totally realize that building
needs fire sprinklers. There's no doubt about it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#8
Page 31
Wilburn: Well, um, and excuse me for interrupting but I want to make sure I don't
forget something. Um, I'd like to have an opportunity to ask staff a couple
questions, in light of some of the information that's been presented, if
that's okay. One of the questions that I, or comments that I'd like to hear,
regardless of...of, uh, the ability of fire suppression systems to...to
prevent catastrophic fire, people still need to get out of the space when a
fire is going down and firefighters show up, so egress does matter, but I'd
like to hear...that's my thinking, but that's one thing I'd like to hear staff
address when they come up. So, I'm sorry, if there was...
Porter: Oh, no, I don't have any...
Bailey: Go ahead, do you have...
Porter: No, the only thing, like I...the only thing we're asking is to let court
decide this in two months, and I believe it was scheduled for April now,
and what we're asking is to let the, let the court decide if that's, if the
staircase needs to be changed or not. That's what we're asking of the
City.
Bailey: Any other questions for Mr. Porter? Okay, thank you.
Porter: Thank you.
Dilkes: I just want to interject. Um, I want to, if you can focus a little bit. I think
the issue here is whether there's a violation, um, and I think you should
get the information that you need to answer that question. The State Code
says that no liquor license shall be issued that does not conform to all fire
regulations. Um, so I think that's the focus. The court and the municipal
infraction is not going to decide whether Mr. Porter keeps his liquor
license or not. Um.. .
Wilburn: Your point being, we have.. .
Dilkes: You need to focus on, I don't think it matters that things were not caught,
assuming they weren't caught, I mean, I don't think that matters. Um, I
don't think it matters that there might be other stairways that are less than,
uh, forty-four inches. What matters is whether the premises that we're
talking about here is in compliance with the fire code. And so if you need
more questions, you know, answered from staff about those things, then I
think you should address them.
Wilburn: We have a liquor license renewal request in front of us. Does it meet the
guidelines, as dictated by the State.
Dilkes: Exactly, and that's a every year proposition.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#g Page 32
Correia: And so, Eleanor, the...the court case with the municipal infractions, will
that, is that case going to be looking at our Code and determining...
Dilkes: That case will, um, make a determination as to whether there has been a
violation.
Correia: Okay.
Dilkes: Presumably, that's what I think the judge will decide.
Correia: Right, but I mean that's the purpose of that case.
Dilkes: Yes.
Correia: The...they'll be looking at our Code...
Dilkes: That is another...that is another remedy that the City can use to obtain
compliance. Um, and... and I don't think the existence of that remedy, or
the fact that that is preceding means, that we can defer a liquor license
renewal. We need to say yes or no to the liquor license, and then there is
an appeal process for that. Um.. .
Correia: That was my next question, so...because we renew yearly, a liquor
license, and we have this court case coming up, and there's the appeal
process for the license holder with the State, um, we can deny based on the
information, the liquor license based on the information that we believe
we have.
Dilkes: There's nothing about the pendency of the municipal infraction that
precludes you from either approving or denying the liquor license today.
Bailey: Well, and the liquor license eventually, the question goes to the State.
Dilkes: It goes to the State, and during the pendency of appeals, the business stays
open.
Bailey: Okay. So, Ross had some specific, a specific question for staff. If you
want to address that, that would be great. (several talking)
Wilburn: I mean, um, my concern was related to either discussions that were, in my
opinion, not relevant to the question in front of us, and so I was asking the
question. Comments had come up and questions about, you know,
whether egress mattered in comments about fire suppression come in in
intentions, and um, so I guess it's sort of been...perhaps that's a moot
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#g Page 33
point, but, uh, based on your assessment there not in compliance, and that
egress is one of the factors, now, that they.. .
Jensen: That's correct. Fire suppression systems, uh, clearly are a wonderful life,
uh, safety component, but it's not 100%. As you indicated in your
comments, you still have to have adequate egress systems. You have to
have, um, an owner and maintenance staff to make sure those exits are
clear, exit signs are maintained, uh, that other code, minimum code
requirements are in place. So it's not just one thing, it's a combination of
many, in order to provide for a safe outcome.
Bailey: Well, and a sprinkler system is to buy time to allow people to exit a
building. I mean, exiting the building is the ultimate safety sort of move,
right?
Jensen: You're correct, that the scope of the sprinkler, uh, standard states that, that
the sprinkler system is designed, uh, only to keep a fire in check, until the
municipal fire department can arrive to do its work, and allow occupants,
hopefully, enough time to escape. So, egress components are still very,
very important.
Bailey: Other questions for staff?
Dilkes: There was one thing...I want to make sure the record is clear...there was a
reference that Connie made to a wider stairway in the back. Is...is...
Champion: Yes, and I've never seen the stairway. (unable to hear)
Dilkes: Is that the case?
Jensen: Uh, One-Eyed Jake's did construct in I believe 98 a conforming second
exit, and I don't have the width of that in front of me, but they did build a
conforming exit, um, at our insistence, and that was in 1998...that was
completed.
Champion: (several talking) Um, okay, you're a fire inspector and I understand the
discrepancies that you see in this building, and I think it's been known that
the stairway was very narrow for a long time, as long as I've been in town
people talked about One-Eyed Jake's up on the second floor, but they do
have a back stairway now that is conforming. Um, he is willing to put in
sprinkler systems. So as...if you were inspecting this building today, and
you still found the narrow stairway, which obviously might not be
changed, with a sprinkler system and um, another egress that's
conforming, would you, uh, I know you can't answer this, but you might
be able to, would you deny this liquor license?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#8
Page 34
Jensen: You know, it's still very important, Connie, and let me tell you why. It's
because of fire experience in this country and around the world. Most
recently in 2003, uh, there was a nightclub fire in West Warwick, Rhode
Island, the Station Nightclub fire where a hundred people died, and that
building had all kinds of exits, but everyone did what everyone does in a
building that's on fire. They go to the way they came in, so they try to get
out the main entrance, and the codes are changing and evolving to require
a greater main entrance-exit width, um, because of that, because people
will pass up a completely viable second exit or third exit, uh, to go the
same way they came in. That was evidenced at West Warwick, uh, the
Beverly Hills Supper Club fire was another good example, where, uh,
occupants died needlessly, passing up viable exits. It is very, very
important that that main entrance/exit at One-Eyed Jake's comply with the
minimum requirements of the code, which we are convinced, requires a
forty-four inch stairway.
Bailey: Any other questions?
O'Donnell: The fire you're speaking of...where a hundred people died, is that not
where we had pyrotechnics display and fishnets on the ceiling and the
ability to.. .
Jensen: That's right. We also had nonconforming finish in that building. Just as
we do in One-Eyed Jake's.
O'Donnell: What's that now?
Jensen: They had nonconforming, um, in that case it was on the walls, uh, finish in
the Station nightclub. So it contributed to the rapid development and
spread of fire.
O'Donnell: Caused by pyrotechnics.
Jensen: Caused by pyrotechnics, uh-huh.
Bailey: Are there additional comments from staff or the license holder? You're
just going to have to be at the mic.
Kresowik: Just one comment on the Station nightclub fire, our expert is actually a
consultant on that fire. The reason people died, two of those exits I
believe there were four exits, one was backstage, two of those exits were
chained shut, so...it had nothing to do with anything besides that. Since
the 1800's, um, properly sprinklered buildings, that means the sprinklers
are working, there has never been what's called a multiple death fire,
which means more than two people. So that's just something to address
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#g Page 35
the sprinkler issues. I think Alan, who's an employee of One-Eyed Jake's
would like to...
Eckhardt: My name is Alan Eckhardt. I work for Mike. I sat through all the
meetings for the sprinklers with Mike, same thing. Saw the videos of the
Station club fire, single level building, two doors, they had front windows
all in the front. It didn't have any sprinklers. In the same presentation
they showed us another fire that happened in Minneapolis the week, I
don't even know, it was the week later - a fine line fire. The building had
sprinklers, not one person died. This was what they used as their rationale
for, this is kind of in reference to your question about egress. The
sprinklers are there, it doesn't make the egress not important, but it does
lessen the requirement for this staircase. Connie, the fire exit that you're
talking about is forty-four inches, all the way down. There's an exit off
the third level, there's an exit off the main level. There, and that goes
back out into the alley that you can leave out by Atlas and 808. So, we've
got more exiting to the outside of our building than probably any place in
town that's accessible to patrons. It's...the fine line fire is the example of
what, and they use this example to get us to okay the sprinklers. The fine
line fire is the example of what sprinklers do, and the non-conforming
ceiling finish is not the same as One-Eyed Jake's. They had foam on the
walls, like you use in like a sound stage, with pyrotechnics behind it. We
don't have foam on the walls or on the ceiling, we don't use pyrotechnics.
It's a completely different situation, so it's not even close to the same fire
hazard, and that's why we don't allow probably pyrotechnics to be used in
bars in Iowa City. We just don't do it because of the fire hazard. So
it's...that class finish thing's not the same, and the sprinkler thing, if
there's sprinklers there -yeah, it doesn't put the fire out -but that fine
line fire, nobody died. The sprinklers went off, everybody was fine,
everybody walked out of the exit, everything was fine. That's all I have to
say.
Karr: Excuse me, did you sign in?
Eckhardt: Yeah, I did. Yep.
Dilkes: Because I think the forty-four inch requirement is...is the issue that we're
talking about here, in addition to the holes in the ceiling, um, Eric Goers
can give you just a very quick layman's, um, summary of the analysis that
we've done of the Fire Code on that issue.
Goers: Thank you. Again, my name's Eric Goers. I'm one of the Assistant City
Attorneys. Um, Mr. Kresowik was correct in speaking to the applicability
of the standards as they refer to Section 1026. Um, and I wanted to turn to
that, because it was that exception, uh, 1026.10 that he cited as one of the
reasons or justifications for an ability to be able to rebuild stairs. Uh,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#g Page 36
1026.10 stair dimensions for existing stairs speaks only as to the rise and
the rung, and says absolutely nothing about width. In fact I'll read it in its
entirety, it's only one sentence long. Existing stairs in buildings shall be
permitted to remain if the rise does not exceed 8.25 inches and the rung is
not less than 9 inches, existing stairs can be rebuilt. LTh, the criteria, or the
commentary below kind of speaks to, uh, less stringent standards, uh, for
that kind of a factor, and that's kind of what Chapter 1026 does more
generally. LTh, that is, uh, 1026 says means of egress in existing buildings
shall comply with Section 1003 through 1025, except as amended in
Section 1026, and again, 1009 is the stairway width requirement. And
1026 talks about elevators, escalators, exit signs illumination -lots of
different factors where they acknowledge, as is the nature of the
International Fire Code of kind of hearing from everyone and establishing
a minimum safety requirement that for existing buildings and the balance
of considerations, there are occasions where less stringent requirements
are appropriate, and they make exceptions for those here, as they have
with rise and rung. As you can imagine, if you have stairways going up
and if there's something from preventing it from elongating so that you
have a longer or wider tread, there's...if the end of the building's there,
there's clearly nothing that can be done to improve that situation and
consequently, uh, the exception comes into play. That's not true of width.
In the entire Chapter of 1026, there's no exceptions that allow for stairway
width to be amended, other than the requirements for existing and new
buildings, as laid out in 1009. The other reference, uh, that was made was
to 102, um, and there was talk about the distinct hazard to life or property.
Now, the Fire Marshall has determined that this issue is, I think for good
reason, distinct hazard to life or property, but the section that was read to
you by Mr. Porter was actually the commentary only on Item 4, of four
items, under 102.1, the third of which speaks to existing structures,
facilities and conditions when identified in specific sections of this Code,
including 1009. For those reasons, and uh, all that have been mentioned
by, uh, Mr. Jensen and Mr. Rocca, I think it is clear that the Fire Code
does apply and the requirement is forty-four inches. I'll answer any
questions if you have any.
Bailey: Questions? Thank you.
Goers: Thank you for your time.
Bailey: All right. I think we'll close the hearing. (pounds gavel) And then, um,
consider a motion to deny in accordance with staff recommendation.
b) CONSIDER A MOTION TO DENY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Wilburn: Move to deny
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#g Page 37
Wright: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Wright. Discussion?
Champion: Well, I have some problems with this. I mean, I'm not saying that the Fire
Department isn't right, or I'm not saying Mr. Porter isn't right, but we
have an existing business here that's been there forever. It's widened the
stairway once. It's going to put in a sprinkler system. Um, I don't know
what to do with old businesses that now don't meet current codes, and
maybe can't meet them. So do they then just close them down? I guess
so. I have problems with that.
O'Donnell: I also have problems. We're talking a stairway. I...I think that's about six
inches. Would you guess? Not five and a half (several talking) but we are
talking about an old building that is very, very difficult, if not impossible
to make comply to the forty-four inches. Um, I...I don't know that we can
put atwenty-year business out of business for six inches. I just...I have a
great deal of problems with this.
Wilburn: Couple things come to mind for me. One, um, part of the duties of a
Council, as required by the State Code, is that we, um, have local
responsibility for implementing, uh, monitoring, licensing that they give
out. One is cigarette, the other is liquor license, um, so those are things
that I prefer that we don't do and that that not be our responsibility, but it
is our responsibility, and then they make a final determination. And so,
uh, second thing that comes to mind for me is that, um, the last Council
gave, you know, these liquor licenses were coming up to us and we really
had no determination in the sense, there was a certain sense of, uh, you
know, rubber stamping them, for lack of a better term, and so we gave
instruction to Police and Fire, we talked -had conversation with our
attorney's office about what are ways that would be...give us a better
handle and feel through our staff, through our experts, on quantifying our,
an ability to make that determination. Yes, we can approve this; no, we
can't approve this. Um, our experts are telling us that this is not in
compliance with Fire Code, um, and I'm...that's the decision that's in
front of me and...and I'm going to, I'm going to agree with our experts.
Bailey: Other discussion?
Wright: You raised a couple of good points there, that it's...it's the Council's
responsibility to enforce this particular Code (unable to understand)
responsibility to a long time business at the same time a responsibility to
the general public, um, difficult choices to weigh, but in this particular
case, safety's pretty important.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#8
Page 38
Correia: L ..I agree, and I think that there are...we make a determination on a year-
long license, and there are appeal processes in place. There's this court
case pending, uh, that will be occurring, um, and I think that we should...]
feel comfortable taking the recommendation of our staff at this time,
knowing that there will be additional, uh, look from other bodies at this as
well, um, so...
Bailey: Um, and I tend to side, take the side of safety as well. I'm actually
surprised given Mike's participation in the sprinkler discussions that, um,
we're actually talking about his business because he seemed very concern
and very concerned about safety, and seems to continue to be concerned
about safety, so, um, I...I appreciate your intent, that you will install
sprinklers and...and believe that you will. I, but I do think these
violations since 2006, particularly the holes in the ceiling issue I find
rather disturbing, considering it not only would have an impact on your
patrons and this particular business, um, building that you lease, but um,
adjoining buildings and that's quite concerning to me. Um, given that I
grew up in Iowa City and I've seen some pretty devastating fires in our
downtown. So, um, I'm going to have to support the recommendation of
our staff. I do think that there's a huge safety concern. So, further
discussion? It's a motion, okay, so all those in favor of the motion to deny
please signify by saying aye. Those opposed same sign. Um, motion to
deny carries 4-2; O'Donnell and Champion voting against it. Okay, shall
we press ahead, or does anybody need a break?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#10
Page 39
ITEM 10 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO A
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY AND FIRST AMERICAN BANK, IOWA CITY, IOWA
FOR PERSONAL BUSINESS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 136
SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA WITHIN THE
BUSINESS OF THE WEDGE DOWNTOWN, INC. (DEFERRED
FROM JANUARY 15)
Champion: Defer indefinitely.
Dilkes: We're ready to proceed.
Bailey: We have the items to proceed.
Wright: Move the resolution.
Correia: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Wright, seconded by Correia. Discussion? Roll call. Motion
carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#11
Page 40
ITEM 11 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT
CONSENTING TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE OF
GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE IN THE IOWA CITY
PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING FROM LEADING EDGE
ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., D/B/A NEW YORK NY DELI, TO
CAPANNA COFFEE, INC., AND AMENDING THE LEASE TO
ADD 210 ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET TO THE LEASE, AND
ASSIGNING RENTAL RATES FOR OPTION PERIODS.
(DEFERRED FROM JANUARY 15)
Champion: Move the resolution.
Correia: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Champion, second by Correia. Discussion?
Correia: So this will, um, mean that the Library rental space is now fully leased. Is
that...that's correct?
Bailey: Believe that's so, yes.
Correia: The revenues from these rentals go to pay down that debt, as for the new
building.
Bailey: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
# 16 Page 41
ITEM 16 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Bailey: Mike Wright.
Wright: I don't have anything to share this evening.
Bailey: Okay. Connie?
Champion: I don't either.
O'Donnell: Uh, Super Bowl weekend. Does anybody know who the Patriots are
playing?
Champion: I don't! (several talking) Are the Patriots playing? (laughter and several
talking)
Bailey: Ross?
Wilburn: Nothing tonight.
Bailey: Matt?
Hayek: Uh, yeah, the interim Provost at the University of Iowa is assembling
some sort of Task Force on the alcohol issues over there, and has invited a
bit of City participation in that, and Regenia and I will be attending a
meeting in early February, uh, we look forward to that meeting and we
look forward to, uh, working with the University on this important issue.
Bailey: Amy?
Correia: Want to remind the public that the You Earned It-Now Claim It free tax
help, the IRS volunteer income tax assistance program will begin this
Sunday, February 3ra, from 1:00 to 4:00 at Lucas Elementary. They will
also be at Penn Elementary in North Liberty on Monday, uh, from 6:00 to
9:00, so folks who earn $40,000 a year or less, you're eligible to
participate, get your taxes filed for free from volunteers trained by the IRS
to prepare those taxes electronically, um, and the volunteers are from the,
uh, University of Iowa Tippie College of Business, and there will be
Spanish translators at, uh, the Lucas Elementary site, as well, and I wanted
to announce, uh, for the Human Rights Commission. They are continuing
their conversation about, uh, the disparity in confinement for African-
Americans in Iowa. There was a conversation last fall about, um, adult
confinement. There will be a discussion on February 20th, a Wednesday,
from 7:00 to 9:00 in Meeting Room A of the Iowa City Public Library
about the disparity for African-American youth, uh, in confinement,
expulsion, suspension, and the community response, so I encourage folks
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.
#16 Page 42
to attend that. I believe it will also be taped as well. And speaking of the
Super Bowl, on Thursday, the Domestic Violence Intervention Program
will be holding their fundraiser, where, uh, you will have soup and can
take a bowl home with you, begins at 5:30 at the Quality Inn, uh, over in
the Northgate, um, the old Highlander, so encourage folks to attend that,
as well.
Bailey: Thanks, Amy. Um, it seems like winter is upon us once again, and I just
want to express our appreciation for all those snowplow drivers out there.
I know we've had a lot of discussion about snow removal, but on nights
like these, I have to say that, um, we all really appreciate the work that
they do, and thanks to all those citizens who are dutifully shoveling their
walks. Those of us who walk places really appreciate that as well.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of January 29, 2008.