HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-15 Transcription#2 Page 1
ITEM 2. PROCLAMATIONS.
a) Persons With Disabilities Day -July 26, 2008
Bailey: (reads proclamation)
Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is Keith Ruff from the Everett Conner
Center. (applause)
Ruff: Thank you, Regenia. On behalf of the Conner Center and staff, we'd like
to thank the Council for helping us every year (unable to understand), not
only people with disabilities, but (unable to understand) non-disabled
people with disabilities, or just people. Thank you. (applause)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#2 Page 2
ITEM 2. PROCLAMATIONS.
b) International Justice Day -July 17, 2008
Bailey: (reads proclamation)
Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is Kade Karacay, Co-Director, Iowa
United Nations Association. (applause)
Karacay: I want to thank the City Council for taking the time to recognize the
importance of the criminal court, especially in light of recent actions
against the Sudanese government in Dar Fur. The actions of the court
demonstrate that impunity against crimes against humanity will no longer
be tolerated in the international community, and to commemorate
International Justice Day, local groups are pleased to have Matthew Heffe
from the American Coalition for the International Criminal Court speak at
local venues in Iowa City and Cedar Rapids. Mr. Heffe is a former legal
officer with the UN Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and he
will speak current...about current cases with the Criminal Court, and the
United States relationship with it. He'll be speaking for the Iowa City
Foreign Relations Council on Thursday, July 17, from 4:30 to 6:00 P.M. at
the...the University Capitol Center in the Old Capitol Mall, at Room
2520-D. Thank you very much, and thank you again for the Council's
support on this important human rights issue, and we hope to see some of
you in the room at one of the talks. Thanks.
Bailey: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#4
Page 3
ITEM 4. COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA).
[UNTIL 8 PM]
Bailey: This is a time for people to speak to items that are not on this evening's
agenda. If you would like to speak to the Council, please approach the
podium, um, give your name and limit your comments to five minutes or
less.
McGuire: Good evening, City Council. LTh, I'm Steve McGuire from Parkview
Terrace neighborhood, um, I just thought I would take this opportunity to
give you an update. The discussion that you had earlier was, uh, was very
similar to the discussion that's going on amongst the neighbors. Some of
the things that I'll point out - uh, in terms of...of Matt's observation, and I
think this is an astute observation, that, um, uh, spreading false hope.
Most of the neighborhood for the past two weeks is under the assumption
that a buyout has a slim chance in hell happening for the entire
neighborhood, and they are wanting to move on with their lives
accordingly. So, I...rest assured that if there's inclusion of everybody,
most people are thinking it's not going to happen. To this date, I think
that we've received signatures of about 70% of the neighborhood. To
Connie's question earlier, and this is information that I think Jeff's going
to discover, uh, as he's putting together the information for the Notice of
Intent. Uh, just about everybody, uh, who's in the 100-year flood plain
because of insurance requirements actually have insurance. And so, uh,
that will change, I'm sure, as you begin to think of the formula. Overall,
uh, I'd like to say that the cleanup has really happened, uh, well. It's
pretty much done for most folks. It's happening, uh, less and less.
Wood's drying out, the smell is getting a little bit better, uh, in the
neighborhood. Specific organizations have been, uh, been very helpful,
Habitat for Humanity, uh, Mennonite Relief Services, Parkview Church,
St. Andrew's, and Mormon Youth Ministries, to name a few that have
been very helpful. Something that Matt mentioned earlier, and I think was
echoed by a number of people. I...I think the neighborhood seems to
coalesce around, and this is a theme. LJh, the next step is to really think
about the mitigation of flooding in the neighborhood. This is over and
beyond an aside from a buyout. What the neighborhood is convinced of is
that if they're going to return and rehabilitate their homes with confidence,
something needs to happen. There has to be some kind of signal of a
commitment. If that commitment rests with raising the road so that people
can get out or the road has, uh, the impact of being somewhat of a berm to
protect from a 93-level flood, not a 2008-level flood, that will inspire
confidence. Most people believe that they are going to either sell their
property, because they don't want to go through a second or a third time,
uh, or convert it to rental property, uh, other neighbors are concerned
about blight in the neighborhood that results from...from the possible
dispossession of a home, abandonment, or the lowering of property values
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#4
Page 4
based on those homes becoming rental property. Uh, that's to say that
while a buyout is probably something that people...some individuals are
hoping for, the entire neighborhood recognizes that a broader perspective
that encompasses a mitigation plan that, uh, maybe has other alternatives
that include a buyout, be part of the solution, and this is for confidence.
Um, these are comments, and I...and I've rank ordered these in
things...of...that I've heard, and I'll go through these...these fairly quick.
Number one on the list, the buyout won't happen for me. I don't want to
move back, so I'll put the least money possible into rehabilitation and rent
or sell the property. And this comes from insured... and insured folks
alike. Uh, number two, I'm waiting until the insurance adjustment is
decided. If I can pay off my mortgage, I'll take a loss, demolish the
structure and sell the property. Uh, this is...for these people, theme
number one, uh, may be a second option. The third one is my only choice
is to move back, even though I'm concerned about flooding that is
happening more frequently, and it's for these people that a level of
commitment that is...is absolutely essential, if it's going to be...maintain
some kind of vitality and bring back the property assessed values that the
City has come to depend on. The fourth one is there's no way I can afford
to rebuild so I'll board up the house and wait and hope there's a buyout,
and this is probably what Michael's worst fear is. Um, I plan to demolish
my house is number five. Number six is it'll never happen again in my
lifetime. I love the river. Please don't make me move. I'm staying here.
Um, finally, on behalf of the neighborhood, I'd like to identify a way, and
I don't know how this happens. A number of organizations have, uh,
offered their services to rehabilitate homes for those families that do not
have flood insurance, and what people have to appreciate is that there are
many people in the 500-year flood plain who are there because it's a flat
neighborhood and so they use this, uh, to get around in a wheelchair.
They use it because of access to the Hospital. Uh, correspondingly, they
don't have a lot of money. What I'm interested in...with other neighbors
in pursuing is a way to identify those people, organizations like Habitat for
Humanity...Habitat for Humanity who's already volunteered for two
families, to rehabilitate homes. This is a little bit of an update, uh, L ..I
again thank you for the work that you've done. I'll note that Jeff
Davidson and Michael have done a tremendous job of being accessible,
finding out information, uh, and the like. One question though I...I, and
you don't need to answer this now, but just for clarification about what is
100-year flood plain and what's not. There's the issue of a structure in a
100-year flood plain is FEMA buyout, uh, think differently in terms of
regardless of the height of the structure it's part of...it's the property that
determines it, it's something that's there. Michael?
Bailey: Go ahead, yes, please.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#4
Page 5
Lombardo: Um, the quick answer is, uh, that we've gotten mixed responses, um, I
asked specifically on the...the Notice of Interest form, uh, because we
were presuming that property meant property, and yet some of the
feedback that we're receiving would indicate that property meant
structure. I was told specifically that it meant structure, but yet in all of
the material that we read through relative to the...the hazard mitigation
program, it...and other programs, property means property, and structure
means structure, so...we're going to clarify that, but...based on the Notice
of Interest and a specific question relative to that, they...they are
indicating is the structure in the 100-year flood plain for the Notice of
Interest and the buyout program.
McGuire: Okay. So it's the properties I wanted to say, which are several in number,
actually have flood insurance (mumbled) Thank you very much.
Champion: Thank you.
Bailey: Thanks, Steve. Others wishing to address Council?
Eastham: Uh, good evening. My name is Charlie Eastham, and uh, my wife and I,
Karen Fox, live at 37 Colwyn Court in the Idyllwild subdivision. We
listened with...to your informal session earlier. Um, I have a couple of
comments that I want to make in response to some of the things that I
heard in that discussion. Uh, one has to do with property tax and loss of
property tax, if people sell their homes to the City and they're not used
any for further development. Uh, most people, including us, if we had a
buyout would buy another property in Iowa City and would continue to
pay property taxes. We're also renting in Iowa City, so now we have the
privilege of paying double property taxes during this period of time. Uh,
the other one is, um, I didn't hear much talk about why people are so
desperately, and I use that word advisedly, interested in selling their
property, uh, and I want to give ourselves as an example. Our house, uh,
at 37 Colwyn Court had three feet and four inches of water in it. We
purchased the home four years ago for $181,000, approximately. It has a
current assessed value of $197,000. We have a loan balance of $125,000,
and our annual income is about $65,000. The cost of repairs, which are
un... a little bit unknown right now, appear to be in the $110,000 to
$120,000 range. Anyway can see that we're looking at cost repairs that
are more than half of the value of the house. We are getting an estimate
from a contractor. We talked to them today, a local contractor, so we can
pin down the cost repairs, and we'll provide that information to the City
Manager or to the City as we go forward here. We received from FEMA a
fairly standard $20,800 in assistance. We're subtracting about $15,000 in
rental assistance. We've rented a place for $900, and we expect to be in it
for at least, uh, the full eighteen months, uh, for which FEMA will provide
rental assistance, as we understand it right now. So we have a $14,000 left
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#4
Page 6
over to replace...for replacement cost assistance from FEMA. We
removed all of our furnishings and all of our appliances, but not everyone
in Idyllwild, and certainly not everyone in Parkview Terrace was able to
do that. So, we're looking at right now, I'm estimating financing, or
trying to pay for, $100,000 in additional repair costs from our home...or,
and that could be offset or helped somewhat by an SBA loan at a low
interest rate, although dealing with the SBA has been, um, difficult so far
because we've gotten lots of different answers from them for the same
question. My wife and I are practically panicky about how to do this. We
did not have flood insurance. The Homeowners Association did not have
flood insurance. My wife inquired four years ago when we moved in,
from a local agent, can I buy flood insurance. She was very worried about
it. She was told, basically, that flood insurance was not available to us.
Since then, in the last several days, that is obviously not the story now,
and we have purchased flood insurance for what we think may likely be
future floods in the Idyllwild area. So going forward, our building,
Building 17, is in the 500-year...the property is in the 500-year flood
plain. The structure, obviously, has been elevated above the 100-year
flood plain, plus some number of inches. Exactly how many inches we're
unsure. We had three inches...three feet, four inches of water. The
building next to us, which is a property which is located in part in the 100-
year flood plain, had about six inches less water than our building did,
although the magnitude of the damage after the water gets just about a few
inches doesn't really make a whole lot of difference how much higher it
gets, as long as the structure is not...is not, uh, fundamentally damaged.
We urge the Council to consider the possibility of additional
Congressional funding, which Congress did .after other natural disasters,
helped, uh, added additional money. We are, as we've communicated to
Council, willing to sell the property, less the 15% or 5% or whatever the
City's contribution was going to be. Um, and we will buy another
property in Iowa City, no doubt about it. We are very concerned about,
uh, continue to live in Idyllwild because of the prospect, I think, of
additional funding. Two major rain storm events in the state of Iowa in 15
years, to me, did not give me confidence that over the next 10 to 15 years
we're not going to see other major rain storm events and precipitation
patterns like this one that are going to put water over that spillway, just to
the north of us, again. We would like to see the property, I mean, I
personally think the best use of Idyllwild and Parkview Terrace, uh, and
Taft Speedway is to return them to a flood plain. I don't know what you
have in mind, Regenia, for using Idyllwild in the future, but if you want to
pay us $100,000 to repair our property, you know, we'll talk about it. I
hope the Council and the staff go forward with understanding that people
have a lot of expenses that we cannot afford, and I know there are other
people of Idyllwild looking at email messages that are in the same position
that we are in, some of them a good deal more desperate. There are
people that are in a much better position, we know that. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#4 Page 7
Bailey: Others wishing to address Council?
Christoffer: My name is Sherry Christoffer. I live at 1550 South Gilbert Street, next to
Aldi's, across from Hills Bank, and it was flooded, and I had to move
eight times during the flood with my service dog, and I been going to the
veterinarian with my service dog because she's breaking down and getting
sores on her. Here's a letter that I had the veterinarian at Bright Eyes,
Bushy Tails write for me. Amber Christoffer, a 6-year Golden canine
presented to Bright Eyes, Bushy Tails Veterinary Hospital on Tuesday,
July 15, 2008, at 3:36 P.M. for sores on her left face, right rear leg, and
left flank. She is also itchy periodically. Sores appeared after Amber and
Ms. Christoffer moved back tot heir home that was recently affected by
the floodwaters. Impression -smears of these lesions were consistent
with bacterial infection. Due to the nature of the sores and the history of
them appearing after moving in, these could be consistent with moving in
to contaminated area. It is advised that Ms. Christoffer and Amber, who is
a service dog for Ms. Christoffer, move out of the affected area to see if
these signs cease after being out of the affected area. Leann Anderson.
That's the veterinarian, and I have...I moved back there about a week ago,
and I have no running hot water. The landlord has done nothing to help
me get the silt or anything out of there, and I purchased my own hose and
started doing it myself and now I have lesions on myself, but I haven't had
the time to go to the doctor for...I've been taking care of other things, like
trying to find another place to live, and all I'm getting is discriminated,
telling me I can't have my service dog which is against the Americans
With Disabilities Act, and I am asking for your help to please get us into a
safe place immediately. This is necessary for me and my service dog. I
also have two cats, and Ihave atwo-bedroom that I've lived in for the last
14 years, and I went to the Human Rights Coordinator today and filed
complaints, and she made some calls for me. I have a place to look at
tomorrow, which is on Broadway, which is not that great of a place for a
person with a disability and a service dog, and I am looking to be in the
general area that I have been because I don't drive and I need to be on the
bus line also. So I'm asking you to please help us get into a safe place
immediately, and most places aren't open until August 1St, but I still have
to go back home, and I have no hot water so it's hard for me to take a
decent shower even right now, and I'm asking for your help to please help
us.
Champion: ...contact .. .
Christoffer: ...and I have copies of the letter here.
Bailey: Sherry, sounds like you're working with our Human Rights Coordinator,
um...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#4
Page 8
Christoffer: She made some calls, and I have one place to look at only, and that's
Broadway Condominiums tomorrow. And I'm on Section 8 housing
so...which makes it even harder to find a place. My price range with my,
um, they call it below poverty level income can range from $560 to mostly
about $600, maybe $625 at the most is what I can afford on my low rent
housing.
Correia: Sherry, have you seen the list that's outside the Housing Authority?
There's a list of landlords that they maintain, that.. .
Christoffer: Yeah, I've done all that, and I've tried to make calls and I even have it
right here on my cell phone, where someone left me a message and said,
no you can't have a service dog. That's when I went to Heather, I mean
not Heather, uh, Stephanie Bowers and she started making the phone calls
for me because I can't even pick up another phone again and get slapped
in the face anymore for the discrimination.
Correia: Have you gone to the Everett Conner Center to have them.. .
Christoffer: Yeah, um, Kat Moore and all them. I just talked to Keith Ruff, and he just
blew me off. So, I'm asking you to please help me and my service dog. I
raised $18,000 for this service dog and I know Paws With a Cause doesn't
want this dog to just be thrown away because I can't have a community
where it's accessible for me and my dog without us breaking down.
Bailey: Sherry, will you leave, um, your phone number with the City Manager and
somebody will give you a call.
O'Donnell: We've got it right here.
Bailey: (several talking) On the letter, okay.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Wilburn: Move to accept correspondence.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn.
Wright: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Wright. All those in favor say aye. Thank you, Sherry.
Wright: Thanks for letting us know.
Bailey: Others who wish to address Council?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5
Page 9
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
c) REZONING APPROXIMATELY .28 ACRES LOCATED AT 700
SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET FROM COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL (CC-2) TO INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1).
(REZ08-00007)
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) The public hearing is open.
Davidson: Good evening, Madame Mayor, and Members of the City Council. As the
Mayor has indicated, Item c is, uh, a request to rezone from CC-2 to CI-1,
property at 700 South Dubuque Street. This is where the property is
located, uh, I have a couple photographs here. That is a picture of the
property, to familiarize you with, um, where it is located. Uh, what the
owner of the property would like to do is, uh, put self-storage units in the
lower level, which is shown here, in the back. Um, this is accessed off of
Lafayette Street. You can't get to it from Dubuque Street, uh, and self-
storage units are not currently allowed, or are not allowed with the
existing zoning of CC-2, but would be under the proposed zoning of CI-1.
Uh, the owner has indicated that the, uh, the use of the Yoga studio, which
is on this floor, would continue, uh, but obviously your decision making as
to...take into consideration any possible use under the CI-1 zone that
would be, uh, that would be allowed. Um, we...we wrestled with this a
little bit. Our recommendation is to approve, but I do want you to
understand that shortly, hopefully within four to six weeks, uh, you'll be
receiving the Central District Plan for consideration, which includes this
property, and the...the issue is that what is proposed is consistent with the
current Comprehensive Plan, and that's why we are recommending
approval because we believe that's fair to the developer and subject to any
future decision making you may make, but we do want to put you on
notice that it is not consistent with the proposed Central District Plan.
Um, but I guess under the circumstances what we're saying is that we feel
it is appropriate for you to, uh, have our recommendation based on the
existing Comprehensive Plan, but simply to put you on notice that there
are some other things envisioned for this area, for which the CI-1 zoning
would not be appropriate, and that we would anticipate in the future, and
in fact, we've even had discussions with this property owner on the
potential redevelopment of this property, and they are very much
interested in, um, what might be possible under the new Central District
Plan and uh, some zoning changes that would happen in the future. So,
any questions about that...did I explain that...
Bailey: Can you go back to the map...see what else was around...okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5
Page 10
Davidson: Yeah, as you can see, there's a significant amount of, uh, there's other CI-
1 zoning in the area, uh, and that in fact this area down here, you know,
basically the zoning line would go across right there and so it's...it's not a
spot zoning. It's consistent with the other CI-1 in the area. What I just
said about this property would also apply to that CI-1 zoned area,
that...based on what we hope to bring you, some new ideas with the
Central District Plan for creating more of an urban neighborhood, uh, in
this area. You know, we don't anticipate a lot of CI-1 zoned property with
that...with that vision, which of course is up to you to decide if that is
truly the vision, uh, and uh, but we're just a little preliminary, and we
don't feel it's fair to the developer because we are preliminary to having
the Central District Plan presented to you. The developer has indicated
that basically they see this as an interim type use so that they can put self-
storage units on the lower level, but they have some long-range plans that
are maybe a little different as well, but the bottom line is that once...if you
were to approve this rezoning to CI-1 it can be used for any CI-1 type use
which includes, uh, more intensive type commercial, outdoor storage and
that sort of thing, and so you should be aware of that with your decision
making.
Correia: Is it...um, what's the, I mean, I'm familiar with that area and so that lower
level Lafayette, there's no visibility from Dubuque Street at all, in fact you
realize when you're down on Lafayette Street it's even part of the same
building, frankly. Um, so if...by chance something were to change on the
upper level Dubuque Street part of the building, property, and they were
to...want to do some type of storage, is there any screening require...I
mean, it's a pretty visible...
Davidson: There are screening requirements.
Correia: Okay. Okay, so there would be some.. .
Davidson: ...but clearly the character of the front of that building under this zoning
could change. As I said, the property owner has indicated they...they
intend to have Yoga.
Champion: Indicating and doing are two different things.
Bailey: Absolutely.
Wright: Subsequent owner could have a completely different idea.
Bailey: Are there other questions for Jeff before we.. .
Correia: You can't split the property.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5 Page 11
Davidson: Pardon me?
Correia: You can't split it, half.
Davidson: Different zoning up and down. Any other questions for me? Thank you.
Bailey: Others wishing to speak at the public hearing?
Dilkes: Want to do your ex parte communications...first?
Bailey: Oh, yes. Um, ex parte communications, disclosure, has anybody
discussed this item with anybody? Okay. That was easy.
Swartzendruber: Good evening. My name is Sarah Swartzendruber. I'm the Attorney
for the applicant. He was unable to be here tonight, but asked me to come.
I don't really have a formal presentation. I'm happy to answer any
questions. I do want to address some of what I'm hearing about concerns
about the rezoning. The applicant has been looking at and discussing with
City staff the potential to redevelop this site, probably for a couple of
years, and has come with a couple of different plans that are of a higher
density than is currently permitted under the zoning code. So when Jeff
talks about the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, my client's very
interested in possible higher density future development of this site. This
zoning application is really for the purpose of allowing him to better cash
flow the property until he's able to redevelop it under the new
Comprehensive Plan. He has no intention of selling the property or
changing the primary use of the property, until it can be redeveloped. This
is, I don't want to say a minor change, but this is something that allows
him to...to use the property for a slightly different purpose. It allows him
to, like I said, essentially cash flow it until such time as it can be
redeveloped. Do you have any questions that I can answer? Thank you
very much.
Bailey: Thank you, Sarah. Are there other ways to get at this use, besides
rezoning this? That would be my question...Jeff, Imean, could it have
been a special exception or...
Davidson: No, for the...for the use that has been requested with the self-storage units,
the CI-1 zone is the...needs to be put in place.
Bailey: Okay, thanks. Others wishing to speak at the public hearing? Okay,
public hearing is closed. (bangs gavel)
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST
CONSIDERATION)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5 Page 12
O'Donnell: .Move first consideration.
Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell.
Correia: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Correia. Discussion?
Champion: I have a little bit of problem with this. Um, because the present owner
maybe fine, but he could sell that property tomorrow, and every piece of
property is for sale at the right price. I don't care who owns it. I have
some problems with allowing storage units this close to the, um, getting
closer and closer to the, our downtown, that end. I just...I don't like it.
Wright: I agree with you, the storage units are close to downtown. My bigger
concern is that we have a CI-1 front on Dubuque Street.
Champion: Well, we already have that on Dubuque Street, but not on that spot.
Wright: Not on that spot, but that has the potential (mumbled) right price, and that
adds a potential that it'll change the face of that structure (mumbled)
concerns me.
Bailey: Further discussion?
Hayek: That's CI-1 to the south of this...
Champion: Right.
Hayek: ...and also to the north? Am I reading that right? (several responding)
Champion: And there's a lot of...
Bailey: Walk us through the map.
Davidson: Yes, there is CI-1 also to the north...there. This CC-2 is just for that
property there. The remainder of the zoning boundary is CI-1 in that area.
Bailey: So along Dubuque Street, those buildings are CI-1?
Davidson: LTh, this property would be CI-1, yes. This would be CI-l. This is P-2.
Bailey: Right, okay.
Davidson: CI-1 further down here that you can see.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5 Page 13
Hayek: So on three sides the subject property is already CI-1.
Davidson: Yes.
Bailey: And that's not what we're looking at in six weeks, basically, or
that's...may be the suggestion.
Davidson: Yeah, well, your decision making will take longer than that. September to
have that, we hope in September to have that to you, and yes, that is not
the long-range vision for the area.
Correia: But in fairness, I mean, I understand the concerns, um, I also...in fairness
to the developer and the current...the current situation of our
Comprehensive Plan, I mean, I agree with the assessment to allow, and
now, have a feeling with the change of...of the Comprehensive Plan that
there will likely be a different project coming from this developer
in...given that self-storage is not the same as big storage units, um...
Champion: Sure it is. Could be.
Correia: But if you've ever been down to the lower part of...of Lafayette, I mean, it
seems to me like a good use of that space.
Champion: I agree with you, it is a good use of that space, but with this zoning it
could actually go right on Dubuque Street.
Correia: I understand that. But we already have it right on Dubuque Street,
anyway.
Wright: We already have...
Correia: CI-l.
Wright: Oh, CI-1, yeah.
Champion: I know that.
Hayek: I agree with Amy. I mean, it's...it's CI-1 already on three sides. We need
to make decisions based on the status quo and not something we anticipate
maybe doing, um, and in any event, the property owner's on notice that we
will be proceeding with a potential change in the Comprehensive Plan for
that area in the future.
Bailey: So it makes me wonder why they didn't, I mean, if they're interested in
redevelopment, I understand the cash flow issue, but I mean, they've
owned this building for a long time. So if they're interested in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5 Page 14
redevelopment it just makes me wonder, the timing of this, which is
curious to me.
Hayek: Well, I think...
Wright: I perfectly agree with the notion that we're operating under the current
Comprehensive Plan. I...we can't...we don't even know what the next
one's going to even look like yet (mumbled)
Davidson: Part of the issue, Regenia, to answer your question has been the developer
has...the developer's architect has been in to talk to us about a potential
project, much higher density, which we would have a difficult time
justifying changing the zoning ordinance, based on the existing
Comprehensive Plan. Presumably we won't, if you all agree that this new
vision for the Central District Plan is put into place, but with the existing
Comprehensive Plan, we really would have a difficult time recommending
such a high density for the property.
Bailey: So you're dealing with status quo as well. Okay. Any further discussion?
Roll call.
Wilburn: LJh, I'm sorry. As we move on, can I, uh, not tonight, but I'm...can I get a
refresher on what the screening requirement is?
Davidson: Sure.
Wilburn: For next time, a memo or just a...tell me where to look in the...in the code
to...okay. (several talking) Yeah, I know.
Champion: I'm just not so sure that there's such a thing as a temporary rezoning.
Bailey: Well, this wouldn't be a temporary rezoning. I mean, that's not what
we're doing.
Champion: Well, with the new...okay, never...
Bailey: Anything else? I don't want to cut off discussion if there's discussion.
All right. Roll call. Item carries 6-1 with Champion voting in the
negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5
Page 15
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
d) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 15, LAND
SUBDIVISIONS, BY REPEALING TITLE 15 IN ITS ENTIRETY
AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW TITLE 15, LAND
SUBDIVISIONS. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) (DEFERRED FROM
6/17 and 6/24)
Wilburn: I move first consideration of the ordinance.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn.
Wright: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Wright. Discussion? Any questions for Jeff? He's standing
right there. (several talking, laughter)
Davidson: I'm just here to answer any final questions you might have prior to
consideration.
Hayek: Connie, you had talked about, well, I don't know if I have a question for
you...to the point we need to converse as a group.
Champion: Um, I don't have any questions. I have some amendments when we get
around to `em.
Bailey: Okay.
Wright: I don't have any questions either.
Bailey: Discussion? Council Members? Others?
Wright: I think (mumbled) of very well wrought, um, limited the zoning code and I
appreciate the effort and the time that staff put into this.
Bailey: Where's your microphone? I can't hear you.
Wright: Oh!
Bailey: I'm sure you said something brilliant, but I couldn't hear it! So would you
repeat what you said?
Wright: Yeah, I said I appreciate...I think this is a very, um, a very well wrought,
um, amendment to the code, uh, I think staff has put a tremendous amount
of time into it, and I appreciate all the work that went into this. I think it's
very well done.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5
Page 16
Bailey: Okay.
Hayek: I would, uh, I...I agree. I think this is a good document, um, I would like
to focus a little bit on the sanitary sewer and water, uh, facilities, um, issue
and...
Wright: You talking about the stubbing into the...
Hayek: Yeah, the...the requirement that...the ability of the City to require a
developer to develop those pieces of infrastructure beyond the actual
property, um, for purposes of tie-ins and subsequent developments
adjacent to the property, and I think it's appropriate for the City to require
that work to be done so that when the second parcel, the adjacent parcel is
being developed, you're not having to go back into the original parcel, uh,
but I guess I'd like us to talk a little bit more about who pays for that
and...and really a financial consideration that we're making. I'm
not...last night staff brought up an example of, um, a developer owning
the first parcel and the second parcel, and that...in that circumstance it
would be appropriate to require that developer to pay for the, um, stubbing
through or the super-sizing, so to speak, of...of pipes. That makes sense
to me, but if that developer does not own the adjacent parcel, um, it seems
to me to be unfair to impose on that first developer an obligation to do
those things, um, maybe there's a way for, uh, the City to pay for that and
then be reimbursed by the adjacent developer.
Champion: Right! It would be a (both talking)
Bailey: Is this a "may" or a "shall?"
Davidson: Yeah, that's the key thing.
Bailey: Is it a "may?"
Davidson: It is proposed to be a "may."
Bailey: So we do have that discretion, or Council, not just us -future Councils -
we have that discretion to...with a "may."
Dilkes: Right. And I think we're talking about two different issues here. We got
the oversize issue, which is the "may, shall" issue, and then we've got the
stubbing beyond the border, which really isn't the "may, shall" issue.
Bailey: Which...are you talking about stubbing beyond the border?
Hayek: I'm really talking about both, because I think there...there are decisions
made regarding the same aspects of a development.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5
Page 17
Correia: So, do you not...are you concerned that...do you not want the City to have
the ability to ask for those, for the developer to...to have the developer
pay for that at all? Do you want that off the table? We will pay for it?
Because it seems to me in the current, what we have in front of us is that
the Council, the City, may ask for the developer to pay for some part of
that cost, um, but doesn't require that. So, I feel like that provides the
ability to determine should the City pay for this. Is it, um, more to the
benefit of the City in future development, or should the developer pay for
it because they need to connect their, the homes they're developing to the
current services. Is that, am I understanding...
Champion: But they would pay, if they were connecting homes.
Correia: Well, that's what I mean, but I mean it's...the way it's currently written,
it's a, gives us, the City, the...
Dilkes: That's why I'm...that's why we need to talk about the two issues
separately, because the "may, shall" doesn't talk...we've got "to the
border and beyond," and we've got "may, shall" contribute to the
oversized costs.
Bailey: Okay. So which would you like to take first.. .
Dilkes: Those are kind of...I understand how you see `em the same, but they're...
Hayek: Let's take the first one first.
Dilkes: The oversize issue.
Bailey: Oversize, which is...
Davidson: What...what staff's position is, is that although it does not happen very
often, there have been instances where we may require infrastructure to be
extended beyond a property line, and we may require the developer to pay
for oversizing costs. They do not happen very often, but there have been
instances where because "may" is in the existing ordinance, we have had
the ability -you ultimately -have had the ability to make a developer pay
for oversizing or a developer extend utility beyond their property line, pay
for extending a utility beyond their property line. And if you believe that
there should be no circumstance where a future Council would have that
ability to use their discretion, then you should insert "shall," and that
would limit all future Councils from being able to do that.
Hayek: And I'm not interested in doing that. I...I like the flexibility that "may"
provides, but if we can insert some sort of soft policy that we're not going
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5 Page 18
to require a developer to do those things if...if the required...if the
developer doesn't benefit from doing those things, but rather either the
City or a subsequent developer does.
Davidson: And, well, perhaps, Matt, because these are not administrative issues,
ultimately these are issues that you all determine, you know, maybe that
provides some, gets you to that point, somewhat. But ultimately, the City
Council makes the decision.
Hayek: Yeah, and if it's...if it's a...if it's something that occurs with minimal
frequency.
Davidson: Which it does.
Hayek: We will flag it and debate it up here and...and make the call.
Davidson: Typically, we require you to at least be extended to the property line, and
the City pays oversizing costs. If you look in the municipal budget, there
are funds budgeted annually for us to pay oversizing costs, whether it's
streets or sewers or whatever, uh, and that's typically what happens.
Bailey: And so the next issue is going on to the adjacent property. You want to
talk about that -that's also a "may."
Dilkes: No, I think that was the end beyond language, that there was some concern
about.
Bailey: And beyond, right. I'm looking for that.
Dilkes: But it's the same...
Hayek: Number on that one?
Davidson: It's basically the same...
Dilkes: Basically the same issue...same issue. (several talking)
Davidson: Yeah, we very rarely require developers to extend utilities beyond their
property line, but it has happened, and you heard the examples last night,
the couple that we can recall.
Bailey: So the language is "as determined by the City." It's not a "may," it's a "as
determined by the City."
Champion: So does that mean that they will do it then if the City wants them to? I
mean, I.. .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5 Page 19
Davidson: Yes.
Champion: Yes.
Davidson: Yes, that you can require that.
Lombardo: And typically how that would likely play out is that if the developer's in
disagreement with it, they're going to come and petition you and...and
stand at that very podium and explain the reasons why they should not be
made to pay it or extend it beyond the boundary, and then you'll be able to
take it in to full consideration in making your decisions.
Champion: I guess I'd rather have it so they don't have to come and talk to me.
Dilkes: Well, but I...maybe if the developers representatives could give us an
example of when this has been harmful to them, then we could frame
some kind of...but I, you know, I don't have...I don't know what the
examples are. (several talking)
O'Donnell: It's acase-by-case issue.
Davidson: Yeah, and I mean, the one time...the example we gave you of when we
required (several talking) a developer to extend beyond, uh, a boundary,
extend utilities beyond their property line was so that the utility
infrastructure in their subdivision would work. It wouldn't work without
us requiring that, because it had to go under the street and tie into the trunk
sewer.
Champion: Okay.
Wright: (several talking) ...language gives us enough flexibility.
Bailey: Well, I think it's what Mike said. It's acase-by-case, and this allows the
case-by-case to be made. Um, it seems to make sense.
Dilkes: It's been that way for a, I mean, (several talking) so it seems to me if thee
was a lot of abuse of that, or concern about it, that there would be some
examples.
Champion: I...I know. I guess I'm okay with it. I...I have to admit, I've never really
gone through and read the codes word-by-word, until they come to me for
a revision. (laughter) It's not how I spend my Saturday night!
Dilkes: I wasn't suggesting you would do that. I think a developer might.
(laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5 Page 20
Wright: It's a great way to...to get to sleep early.
Champion: It would be, wouldn't it? (laughter)
Bailey: So, further discussion about the subdivision regulations?
Champion: Um, I would like to talk about deleting the buffer requirement by
highways. Um, I think it should be market-driven. I don't think we...
Bailey: Do you have a number?
Champion: Yeah, 15-34-C.
Bailey: Thank you.
Dilkes: See! You do read these!
Champion: I do, see! I did read it! (laughter) I just have, I don't know, it seems to
me that that's really should be market-driven, and we shouldn't be getting
our nose into this, um, anybody that's going to build a subdivision around
the interstate and not buffer it has got a lot more money than I do, `cause I
don't think it's going to sell real well, but I still think that's their decision,
and not mine.
Correia: I do find it compelling this...the situation that, um, Bob Miklo shared with
us yesterday about the Mackinaw Village.
Champion: But that was a developer's choice.
Correia: But...but what I'm saying is...is that they're coming back and saying they
can't sell these lots, and so we will be asked to, I assume, there's
discussion at the staff level...
Davidson: They wanted a higher density zoning.
Correia: ...to change the zoning, and then you have a situation where we either
don't change the zoning. We have...there's no development in that
neighborhood, doesn't build out, or we change the zoning and we have
neighbors that bought in at the part, not at the, you know, at the beginning
of the neighborhood saying this was not the neighborhood I bought into,
um, I think the other thing that Michael shared about just the deterioration
of homes near interstates, I'm sure part of that is due to pollution, um, and
all those types of things that protects our...our invest...the investment of
our...of our community. Um, and so I...and it also saves neighborhoods
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5 Page 21
coming back to us later, asking for this, when the highway noise becomes
higher, um, or more intense. So I support it.
Bailey: Well, and this...this is kind of a health and safety issue. Even HUD has
identified it as an issue, and...and they don't allow building where the
decibel level is high. So, I think it's clear...the one thing I liked, well,
among the things I like about it, is that it's clear to those people who are
purchasing property adjacent to these areas, what the requirements are.
It's very specific, it's very clear. It's not a negotiable item as it has been
previously. And I do think it's beyond market-driven. It is a health and
safety issue. I mean, if HUD has noted...I mean, HUD is not exactly the
most progressive health and safety organization. If they're noting.. .
Champion: They also have time to make up a lot of rules. (laughter) And we also
have too much time making up rules. (laughter)
Bailey: I just...I just think the clarity would be beneficial to somebody.. .
Wright: Certain amount of standardization is also a good thing.
Bailey: Yeah, that's what I...yeah.
Champion: All right. Well, the other thing I have...
Hayek: Before you move on, Connie, let me ask Jeff a question. We...we, to date
we have some amount of development adjacent to I-80 and 218 without
any buffer.
Davidson: No, it's...I think the key difference, Matt, is that currently we have to
negotiate that with a developer. This would require it. We, for example,
you recently had a cul-de-sac in Galway Hills where the developer went in
on his own and built a buffer, along those back lots that go along 218,
because he felt for marketing the property, it was important. We had
nothing to do with it. He did it voluntarily. We have been able to
negotiate, you know, it's typically the planting of trees and that sort of
thing, but the key thing, the key difference between what is current and
what is proposed is that's it's currently negotiated, and as proposed it
would require it.
Hayek: Okay, but do we have any subdivisions...do we have any residential areas,
uh, in the Iowa City corporate limits that are adjacent to I-80 or 218 that
don't have any buffers?
Davidson: Um, it's pretty minim...well, Mackinaw's probably the best example
where there are a few trees planted back there, but boy when you're down
there, the interstates right there. Galway, uh, I can't remember the name
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5
of the street, but the street that runs parallel to the interstate, again,
not...not a lot of buffering there, uh...
Hayek: I mean, are we opening ourselves up to having to revisit areas...
Davidson: Oh, no, unless it was rezoning.
Page 22
O'Donnell: I don't know what the resistance to a buffer zone is. It just seems to me
that it's incredibly good planning. I mean, it...it certainly enhances the
neighborhood. I'm just...I'm very much in favor of it.
Champion: I'm not resistant to it. I just don't think it should be our order. The other
thing I don't like (laughter) um, I don't like the idea of those mid-block
connections. I can see where if there's a school across the street, the City
might negotiate one to be put in there, and then I would think you'd have
to mark it with crosswalks and signage. I think it's dangerous, uh, to just
make a sidewalk go into a street, um, that isn't an obvious corner. I think
it's...it's, uh, I don't think it's safe and I can't support it.
Wright: Why don't you just require...
Correia: Is this something that's, uh, coming from a... from staff from a standard
for, I mean, because you might suspect that when there's a long way to go
to cross at a corner, people are going to cross sooner...
Champion: LTh-huh.
Correia: ...anyway, and so this way there's a marked crosswalk.
Champion: But that's my problem with it though. There's a mark.
Correia: Then that increases safety. I mean, this seems to be a standard that you
brought forth...
Davidson: Yeah, I mean, this is considered to be a progressive thing to do for
pedestrian and bicycle, uh, accommodation in neighborhoods. It's
currently something that we negotiate. There's a lot of them out there that
we have seen successfully negotiated. This would basically require it,
unless the City determined that it shouldn't be there, and then we could
waive it.
Correia: Okay. So, then we have negotiated these and we haven't seen them to be
contributing to accidents or confusion?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5
Page 23
Davidson: You know, I don't have any hard data, in terms of crash rates that occur at
these, Amy. We're not aware that they have been a significant problem.
They're in a lot of our new neighborhoods.
Correia: Okay.
Bailey: So, when you say that it's considered progressive for pedestrian and
bicycles, I mean, this would be part of a complete streets approach, would
it, I mean, or would that be overstating?
Davidson: LTh, it'd probably be overstating it. The complete streets approach is
within the right-of--way of the street, and these are outside the right-of--way
of the street, but clearly it's designed to make travel in neighborhoods
more convenient for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Bailey: And once again it's a "may." It's "maybe" required, although.. .
Davidson: It would be required unless we waived it. Four blocks longer than 600
feet.
Bailey: Okay.
Davidson: Remember, the standard block in...in original town is 320 feet, so it's
basically when you have the equivalent of two blocks, we'd require a
pedestrian.
O'Donnell: I have a couple things, if everybody's finished. I, um, I have a problem
with the narrow streets. I don't like going from 28 feet to 26, um, I think
that's a safety issue in the area. I also didn't like the mid-block crossing,
but if you look at it, people will cross anywhere they want. I don't think
they're going to go to the mid-block and cross. Uh, I also did not like the
City discouraging the use of cul-de-sacs. I've said that before. I think
they're safer. There's some disagreement, but I...I believe that two to
three cars in a specific area is much safer than a hundred cars in that area,
so I think any time we as a city discourage something, that sooner or later
it becomes rule, rather than suggestion. So I'm just, I have a problem with
that. Having said all that, I know how everybody feels about it, so I'm
ready to move on.
Champion: I do like the narrower streets. I do like that.
O'Donnell: I'll buy you a bicycle. You ride on `em.
Champion: I will.
Wright: I ride those narrow streets every day.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5
Page 24
Hayek: My...my thoughts are, each of us probably has a couple of nit-picky
things with...with the draft, um, nothing seems to be, uh, the focus of lots
of us. It's awell-written document and we have not gotten a whole lot of
input from interested members of the public on...on the draft itself.
Bailey: Well, and much to stafl's...much to the process' credit, I think that a lot of
that input came in developing this.
Hayek: Yeah, and they've already been through that, but in terms of it being, uh,
the subject of our deliberation. I've heard from a couple representatives,
um, and that's really the extent of it.
Wright: We had some other people.
Champion: But there was a lot of input in the beginning, which I'm really glad to see.
Bailey: I thought the process was really good.
Champion: It was, the process was really good.
Bailey: Further discussion? Okay, roll call. Item carries unanimously. (laughter)
Thank you.
Champion: I couldn't vote no on the whole thing.
Bailey: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5
Page 25
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
e) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING
APPROXIMATELY 10.08 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH
OF HIGHWAY 6, EAST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD, AND WEST
OF COMMERCE DRIVE FROM INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-
1) ZONE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) ZONE.
(REZ08-00003) (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Bailey: This is second consideration, and the applicant requests expedited action.
Wilburn: I move that the rule requiring that ordinances must be considered and
voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at
which it is to be finally passed be suspended. That the second
consideration and vote be waived, and that the ordinance be voted for final
passage at this time.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn to expedite.
Champion: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Champion. Um, disclosure of ex-parte communications
regarding this, uh, rezoning? Okay, further discussion? Roll call. Item
carries 7-0.
Wilburn: I move the ordinance be finally adopted at this time.
Hayek: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Hayek. Discussion? Roll call. Item
carries 7-0.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Wilburn: Move to accept correspondence.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn.
Hayek: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed same
sign. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5
Page 26
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
f) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY
9.48 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF OLIVE COURT
AND LEAMER COURT AND EAST OF MARIETTA AVENUE
FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) ZONE TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (OPD-8). (REZ08-0001)
(SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Bailey: This is second consideration, and the applicant requests expedited action.
Wilburn: Um, move that the rule requiring that an ordinance must be considered and
voted on for a final passage at, for passage at two Council meetings prior
to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended. That the
second consideration and vote be waived, and that the ordinance be voted
for final passage at this time.
O'Donnell: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, um, and seconded by O'Donnell to expedite.
Discussion? Um, let's disclose ex-parte communication now that I'm
thinking about it. Any? Okay. Roll call. Item carries 6-1, um, Hayek in
the negative.
Wilburn: Move adoption of the ordinance.
Wright: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Wright. Discussion? Roll call. Item
carries 6-1, Hayek in the negative.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Hayek: So moved.
Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Hayek. All those in favor say aye.
Those opposed same sign. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#5 Page 27
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
h) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT
OF KENNEDY'S WATERFRONT ADDITION PART FIVE, IOWA
CITY, IOWA. (SUB08-0007)
Wright: Move the resolution.
Bailey: Moved by Wright.
Champion: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Champion. Discussion? Roll call. Oh, sorry!
Wright: I just wanted to say, we spend an awful lot of time talking about floods
tonight, and this is a piece of land that by everybody's acknowledgement
was well under water the other day. It seems to me a bit foolish.
Bailey: Okay. Further discussion?
Dilkes: As far as I know it complies with all the City codes.
Bailey: And then, assuming that...
Dilkes: Therefore, it's (mumbled)
Bailey: Okay. Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Hayek: So moved.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Bailey: Moved by Hayek, seconded by O'Donnell. All those in favor say aye.
Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. (mumbled) break?
Hayek: Just keep going.
Bailey: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#7
Page 28
ITEM 7. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE ARTIST FOR
THE WASHINGTON HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ART PROJECT
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE
CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE SAME.
Correia: Move the resolution.
Champion: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Correia, seconded by Champion. I see Marcia's here. Did you
want to speak to this item?
Correia: Looks like a really fun project, involving quite a lot of youth at different
ages, um, elementary school youth, high school youth. (unable to hear
person responding) I just said it just looks like a really exciting project,
involving a local artist...
Klingaman: I think so!
Correia: ...and quite a lot of youth involvement.
Klingaman: Youth, high school.
Correia: Elementary school, students help with the design, and the high school
student, art students helping with the instruction.
Klingaman: And the neighborhood will be overseeing all of it, and providing input.
Correia: ...really great (several talking)
Bailey: It's nicely designed as a public art project.
Champion: I do miss Elliott on the Council though when we do these. (laughter)
Bailey: Further discussion? (laughter) Okay, roll call. Item carries 7-0. Thanks,
Marcia.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#8 Page 29
ITEM 8. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS IN THE 1000-1200 BLOCKS
OF FOSTER ROAD.
Wright: Move the resolution.
Bailey: Moved by Wright.
Correia: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Correia. Discussion? Roll call.
Hayek: Hold on a second. (several talking)
Bailey: Oh!
Show: Um, hi everybody. Uh, yeah, I just found out about this in the paper.
Bailey: Can you give your name...name for the record?
Show: ...oh, I'm sorry. Paul Show.
Bailey: Thank you.
Show: I work for Iowa City Transit, and I currently drive a bus down to the
Peninsula four times a day. I may not have that route when we change
routes, but I have it now. I saw that this was on the, uh, agenda in the
Press-Citizen today, where you discussed it last night. I called, uh,
planner Darien today and she explained a little bit about it to me. Um, not
in favor of these speed bumps whatsoever. They're not needed. It says
here in your fourth paragraph, whereas the Council finds said proposal to
be in the public interest. That's not true. I'm not interested; I'm part of
the public. You had nine people vote for this, one that I understand now
has moved from that area. You put out 20...you had 16 that...that didn't
bother to even send a, uh, the survey back and three that were against it.
I'm against it, and I'm sure my other fellow, you know, Transit drivers
would be against it. I drive through there, uh, four times between the
hours of 6:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. There's no traffic. There aren't even
any people out there. There's no one. Why would we do this? It's two
blocks and the last block, the cars would have to slow down to make a left
turn. I have to slow down, and I almost have to come to a complete stop.
I looked at my speedometer when I was going through there today. It was
20 miles an hour. You have to go around the parked cars. I understand
that Darien told me that with the traffic calming, um, program that...that it
meant unfortunately that the cars were going through there a little bit fast.
She did not have the numbers. The other part of that though is how much
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#8
Page 30
traffic there is there, and she didn't have those numbers forme. And since
this road was built within the last few years, I think, it's certainly not too
long ago, it's a modern road and it should be able to sustain a moderate
amount of traffic. Uh, we built a dog park that's very popular evidently. I
don't use it, at the corner of the city, which is, you know, it takes a little
bit of driving to get to. People are going down a road that...that frankly,
you know, doesn't have a whole lot else on it. Then they come to the
subdivision, they might be going just a little too fast, but I just don't think
there's enough traffic to warrant speed bumps there, and she didn't give
me those statistics. I see Kent Ralston's name is on here, but I talked to
Darien. Um, on the Police web site a while back and when I checked it
again today, there's something called the Police Speed Survey Results,
and I looked through those and, uh, you know, to be honest with you, most
people, they come pretty close to following the speed limits on those
surveys. There's a percentage that are a little bit outside what, you know,
would be considered the norm, but most of the people in those surveys, so
I'm not sure why this...this survey, this traffic calming survey showed
such a skewed picture of the cars that go through there, and I think this
should be, uh, reconsidered. This was just made a bus route. This is a big
enough road and an important enough road to have a bus on, and it is also
a road that leads to a, like I said, the dog park, and you do have a lot of
people utilizing it and I'm sure none of them would be in favor of having
to drive over a bunch of speed bumps, and we're the public too, so I don't
think eight people, now it says nine, but one has actually moved from
there I just heard tonight, that eight people is the public. I don't think the
public would be interested in these speed bumps, and...or humps. The
other issue is, uh, I do go over the humps up on, um, Kimball Road, and
Darien indicated to me that you should be able to drive over these humps
at 25 miles an hour. It's to get people down to the speed limit. Well, it is
impossible to take a City Transit bus over those humps up on Kimball. If
you go at 15, it's really too fast, I'll be honest with you, and I think, and
cars slow way down also. There is a speed hump or a...up by Newton
Road, up by the north hospital area. That is a much nicer, um, hump. It
has a small ramp up to it. It's a flat area, and then there's a ramp down.
It's actually a crosswalk. The humps that the City installs are basically
bumps and you hit them and there's no smooth way to get over `em. And,
uh, I think that the actual hump needs to be looked at if you're going to
put them in. It needs to be revised to be much more, uh, user-friendly, if
you want, and I don't think this area...it's just been built. It, maybe in 15
or 20 years you might want to look at something like this, but I just don't
see that there's any need for this right now. And I certainly don't want to
have to drive a bus over some more humps, and um, that are not needed.
I...I've never even seen any children playing out - no children, no adults,
nobody. Once in a while a bicycle riding around through there. I'm done,
go ahead. Thank you very much for listening to me.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#8
Page 31
Bailey: Thank you.
Correia: I have friends that live on this street who do have small children and I
imagine they don't play out front because they are concerned about cars
that are going by very fast, probably not during the day, but on the
weekends going to the dog park, um, and to the Frisbee golf. This is a
traffic-calming program that we put in place for neighborhoods. We had a
petition. It met the thresholds, and I will be supporting it.
Lombardo: Madame Mayor? Um, I'd just like to reflect for the record that this is not
a City position, um, we've not vetted this through, uh, the department
director and the...the position being taken this evening is an individual
position, uh, from Mr. Show. Um, it's something that we can discuss with
staff later on, in terms of the presentation this evening.
Bailey: Thank you.
Show: With all due respect...
Bailey: Paul. I thought you said you were finished.
Show: Well...
Bailey: We're not going to engage in a dialog.
Show: Okay, fine.
Bailey: Um, Kent, um, when we used to get these, um, traffic calming sorts of
things, we would get the statistics, and I noted that we did not. Typically
we get a sense of the traffic volume, and the traffic speeds, and I notice
that we didn't get that kind of memo with this.
Ralston: They're not in here tonight. I believe they showed up in your packets, um,
it's been a few months ago now.,
Bailey: Okay.
Ralston: And I'd be happy to share those with you again, if need be. Um...
Bailey: I'm sorry. I didn't remember.
Ralston: ...from my recollection, the volumes weren't as much the issue in this
neighborhood as the speeds were. Um, I think the volume's around 500,
excuse me, or so vehicles a day. The speeds, however, the 85t'' percentile
speeds were roughly, uh, in the low 30's to mid and even high 30's in
certain areas. So I think 37, 38 mile an hour, uh, in one direction.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#8 Page 32
Bailey: Okay, thank you. That helps.
Ralston: Thank you.
Wright: And I think what Amy is saying, anecdotally I understand that the
speeding problem does tend to occur on the weekends. (mumbled)
Bailey: Certainly when I've been out there on my bicycle I would agree with that,
yeah. Other...further discussion?
Wilburn: I was...I guess...are you going to allow another comment from the public
or not...is it...
Champion: This is actually in the neighborhood itself, isn't it? That, yeah...no
(several talking) yeah, so you should, you have to slow down to 15 miles
an hour with a bus to go through there anyway. Well you should.
Wilburn: I...I was just going to add, um, I share, my experience coming down into
the Peninsula area on my bike has been primarily the, uh, the weekend
hours where that becomes an issue. Uh, a few, uh, Thursday evenings we
had some issues down there, but in terms of, uh, the speed humps, a lot of
people...people that tend to not like them, um, because they do the job -
they work. You're speeding. They slow you down. My experience
driving over there, and I don't a drive bus obviously, but uh, that, uh, but
I've ridden on buses when they've gone over the speed humps, um, and it,
uh, again they...they work and that's why some people do not like them.
They...the one that was referred to earlier, uh, I believe is a speed table?
Is a speed table (several talking) right, with a crosswalk on...on the top,
um, so, um, you know, if Council, uh, wants to debate the merits of
the...of the program, that's one issue, but, um, again my experience out
there, the...the, and uh, you know, the project's designed so that you're
kind of assessing the neighborhood and a lot of times you are getting the
neighborhood to, uh, slow themselves down, to stop interfering with each
other in terms of the safety in the traffic, but, uh, I'm fully supportive
of...of the, uh, program, the process, and again, they are effective, and I
drive over them, um, and see the public driving over them, um, frequently
where we put them in, so I'll be supporting this in this area.
Bailey: Further discussion?
Hayek: I have a question probably for Eleanor. Can you refresh our
understanding of...of what occurs, what could occur down the road
assuming this passes and speed humps are installed if there're unintended
effects.. .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#8
Page 33
Dilkes: My understanding is that the...the neighborhood is resurveyed a year later.
Wilburn: It's, yeah, it's done a year later and we make the...
Ralston: That's correct. The neighborhood is resurveyed one year, um, after the
speed humps are installed, or not, whatever the case may be here, um, and
then at that point in time then the decision is up to the Council again to
remove those if need be.
Wilburn: And Council has historically made, uh, certain adjustments and
accommodations within, uh, the entire project, not just the hump. In fact
we got into the unique, um, characteristic with the, uh, the gate I believe,
on I forget the name. Is it Lexington? (several responding) uh, so Council
has historically made adjustments based on experience from, uh, the
public at large comments, as well as the neighborhood resurveys.
Ralston: And to date I don't believe any speed humps have actually been removed,
because they do effectively slow people down.
Bailey: Further discussion?
Champion: Well, I'm going to support this because I...if somebody's driving 35 miles
or higher in that neighborhood, that's terrible.
Thornberry: Good evening, Dean Thornberry, and um, I was wondering on these speed
humps, seems like whenever we build new streets anymore we ought to
just go ahead and put `em in when we build the street. They're getting so
prolific throughout the city. Um, but my question is this - if, uh, maybe
two or three years down the line...down the road after the humps have
been put in and other people...some people move out and other people
move in and is there any way of taking it back out? I mean, if you put in a
resolution to...can you take `em back out? If that be the case, the City is
paying to put these speed humps in and paying to take them out. It would
seem to me that if they're not there originally and the people get all their
little signatures around and then they want these speed humps, let them
pay for the speed humps. Why should the people of the City who paid to
put the streets in and...and pay to maintain the streets not necessarily the
humps, the people that want the humps should have to pay for `em. You
might want to visit that, and...and um, I don't know what it costs. I think
it's...it's considerable. Also, I don't know how they're put in, but some
are higher than others. Um, I was a little upset with some speed humps on
a street so I measured some of `em, and they vary by like an inch, from
one to another, and some are easier to go over than others, and some cars
of course go over it, uh, easier with a Lexus than with a pickup truck, but,
um, again if...if, I don't know if that's the case, that...but I think they
should have to pay for `em if they want `em, and then if they, if people
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#8 Page 34
move in and they take another survey and then it passes that they don't
want `em, uh, then the City has to take `em out, you know, we did that
when I was on the Council with those chicanery and we put `em in and
there were some accidents and we took `em back out again - a little
pricey! So, I think you ought to maybe revisit the speed hump problem in
Iowa City. Thanks.
Bailey: Thank you. Further discussion?
O'Donnell: Yeah, for a long time we've talked about humps and bumps and I was also
in on the chicanery being, uh, and voted to take `em out, uh, but you
know, I guess the bottom line is the City has a policy, and we survey a
neighborhood. If the majority comes back and wants them, it's our rule. I
pretty much feel we're bound to do it. Um, you know, if we want to
revisit that policy, I'd certainly be interested, but we're enforcing policy
that we set in place, so I really don't know how you can vote no against
this.
Champion: I...I know we have a lot of requests for traffic calming, for good reason.
We have a lot more people in town and...and cars have bigger engines.
Maybe when they get down to smaller engines again they won't go so fast,
but I also think that this is not unique to Iowa City. There are many, many
cities in this country that have a lot of speed humps. In fact, some cities
put them in automatically on every road, on every single road, except for
main arterials. So, we're way behind the times. We're just getting started,
Dean.
Bailey: Further dis...further, uh, discussion (several talking and laughing)
Show: Excuse me, but I sure would like to know the name of that city that puts it
in on every single street they put in, uh, if they put in humps on every
single street they put in, I'd like to know the name of that city.
Champion: Well, drive out to San Francisco.
Show: San Francisco?
Bailey: Further discussion? (unable to hear person away from mic) Yes, enough
said. Paul?
Show: Well, actually where my mother-in-law lives in Naples, Florida they took
out the speed humps. iJh, I would also like to say, this is different
information, ones up on Kimball Road when it snows, you can't see `em.
When it rains you can't see `em. When there's a shadow you can't see
them very well, uh, the lines that they originally had on `em have faded of
course. They're the same color as the asphalt, they're black. So they're a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#8 Page 35
little bit difficult to see, uh, you know, I go over `em every day so I
remember they're there, but others may not. Um, I understand there's a
program. I disagree that a majority, however, wanted these. A majority
did not want these. There were 16 abstentions basically, or no-shows, if
you will. Nine were for it. One is moved. That leaves you eight. Three
were against it. That's not a majority, not of the letters you sent out.
Thank you very much.
Bailey: Thank you. Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Wilburn: So moved.
Hayek: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Hayek. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#9
Page 36
ITEM 9. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK
TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
HIGHLAND COURT WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
Bailey: Um, the Engineer's estimate was $231,000, um, it's recommended to
award it to Maxwell Construction of Iowa City, Iowa. The bid was
$165,312.
O'Donnell: Tremendous bid! (several responding)
Wright: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Wright, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Roll call. Item
carries unanimously.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#11
Page 37
ITEM 11. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK
TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE 2008
SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT
Wright: Move the resolution.
Champion: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Wright, seconded by Champion. Engineer's estimate was
$319,000, and the recommendation is to award it to Municipal Pipe &
Tool Company of Hudson, Iowa, and that bid was $161,437.
O'Donnell: How did we do...how did this, what's the discrepancy here?
Lombardo: We...we didn't spend a lot of time discussing it. My understanding is
they were...with the volatility of the market and things that were going on,
they projected, obviously, considerably higher, but there wasn't
any...anything mysterious going on.
Bailey: Okay. Any further discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#12
Page 38
ITEM 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK
TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ROBERT A. LEE RECREATION CENTER ROOF MEMBRANE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn.
Hayek: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. Um, the Engineer's estimate for the base bid was
$335,000, and the recommendation is to award it to T&K Roofing of Ely,
Iowa for a total of $286,763. Um, further discussion? It's again a good
bid. LJh, roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#14
Page 39
ITEM 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN ASSESSMENT
SCHEDULE OF UNPAID MOWING, CLEAN-UP OF PROPERTY,
SNOW REMOVAL, SIDEWALK REPAIR, AND STOP BOX
REPAIR CHARGES AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO
CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY
TREASURER FOR COLLECTION IN THE SAME MANNER AS
PROPERTY TAXES.
Hayek: Move adoption of the resolution.
Bailey: Moved by Hayek.
O'Donnell: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Sweet: Yes.
Bailey: Hello.
Sweet: Um, my name is Ellen Sweet. I live at 1219 Oakcrest Street, and I object
to the assessment against my property, uh, for weed removal. As shown
on the exhibit to this resolution, would be the last one (mumbled) I object
because I never received any notice of the alleged violation by Certified
Mail. Notice of a violation must be provided to the property owner by
Certified Mail according to Iowa Code, Section um, Chapter 364, Section
12 (noise on mic). I therefore request that you remove my property from
the list of properties included in this resolution. Thank you for your
consideration of my request.
Bailey: Thank you. Further discussion?
Dilkes: Notice can be given by Certified Mail or by ordinance. We give it by
ordinance.
Bailey: Okay, and so, all right.
Hayek: Is that, is it your opinion that we've complied with.. .
Dilkes: Yes.
Hayek: ...in this particular instance.
Bailey: Further discussion?
Champion: ...do we notify? Just because...(several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#14
Page 40
Thornberry: I'm Dean Thornberry, and I'm representing T&Z Partners, and I'm the T
of T&Z. At, uh, the statement of Accounts Receivable that we received on
March 31St, which is a Monday, for snow removal at 519 Highland
Avenue on 21St of February this year was for snow removal for $60 and
administration fee of $50 for a total of $110. Now, I called Jann Ream,
the sidewalk enforcement lady, on Monday afternoon on March 31St when
I got my notice. And she was out for the day, but I...she called me back
the next morning, which I thought was pretty nice, and that was April 1St,
and I thought it was a joke but it wasn't. She informed me that on the date
in question, February 21St of 8...08, the City's contract company had
spread asalt/sand mixture on the sidewalk. The sidewalk had been
shoveled, but had ragged edges, but didn't need shoveling, and that it had
already been done, but that there was no salt on the top of the ice, only
sand below the ice. We had salted and sanded it several times, during the
ice storms, and there were several last winter. Shoveling of the parking lot
and the sidewalks was done on a regular basis. If necessary, I can get
affidavits from our commercial business, uh, customers in the building as
to the frequency and thoroughness of the cleaning. This is on the corner
of Boyrum and Highland, behind the Burger King on...on, uh, Highway 6.
Anyway, we did run out of the salt mixture for about five days, and when I
found out that we were out of this salt/sand mixture, I went to K-Mart,
Horsheim, Hy-Vee, Wal-Mart, Menard's, and Lowe's -all of them were
out of the mixture. Um, but I was at Lowe's on the afternoon the next day
that, when the truck came in, and with more salt/sand mix and I bought
five bags of the stuff. Anyway, it's not about the money, although $110,
is a tad pricey for throwing out some salt/sand mixture on the sidewalk.
No shoveling was involved, as it had been shoveled and I'll bet it had
some ragged edges. But anyway, uh, as I was...as I understand it, it was
done on a complaint basis and...and the person who complained that the
sidewalk was slippery I believe was the same person that has complained
that the grass kind of grows over the edge of the sidewalk in the summer
time and other things, whether it be a stick on the sidewalk or...or leaves,
and I request that this charge to T&Z be dismissed. Uh, we had sanded it.
We had salted it. We had shoveled it. It was shoveled. It just needed
perhaps some sand at the time, but like I said, I could see the sand that we
had already put down there, below the surface of...of the ice. So it had
rained and frozen the night before and the sand was covered up by the ice.
I couldn't be there on a 24-hour-day basis, but there was one complaint,
and this lady is...this person has complained, like I said, about other
things -the grass growing along the edges too close to the edge of the
sidewalk and so on, and I don't think we should have to pay $110 for
somebody to come out and throw out some sand. Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#14
Page 41
Thornberry: What do we do now...I don't know what to do now? Do I just wait, or
what do I do?
Bailey: I think you just wait until we vote.
Thornberry: Okay.
Bailey: Okay.
Thornberry: Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you. Discussion?
O'Donnell: You know, it really was an incredibly bad winter. We had two
snowstorms in February. It seemed to snow five out of seven days, most
of all winter. Um, I shoveled all the time, uh, seems like that...that was a
second job, but, uh, I don't know, this again is...is an ordinance and it's
complaint activated so I...I don't know how, uh, you know, that's I guess
all I can say is complaint activated.
Champion: It is complaint activated, and I'm not against that, but I do think somehow
we need to look at this, um, for instance, I've never had anybody call and
complain about my sidewalk, and my neighbor up the street has had
several times, and her...her sidewalk always looks a lot better than mine.
So, what I'm saying is I think sometimes there are people out there who
just like to call the City and complain, especially if somebody has done
something to irritate them. Um, maybe it should take more than one
complaint. Or something. Because then I also walk down Burlington or
Iowa Avenue and it hasn't been shoveled for weeks, but nobody's calling
to complain about that. But I...that's the only thing that bothers me about
this ordinance. I know we can't go around and check everybody's
sidewalks, but one person and...and this, like I said, this neighbor of mine
has constant complaints about her sidewalk and yard, and I tell you, it's all
better maintained than mine.
Wright: The City does send somebody out to look and make sure it's a founded
complaint. They don't just take people at their word. So, there must be
some reason.
Champion: Well, but you know, there were a lot of sidewalks in town that weren't
down to the cement when we had several snowstorms in a row, and yet her
house got the complaint, but none of the other ones did, so this is what I'm
saying. That it's...it might be complaint driven, but I think sometimes the
complaint is a sort of aggravated complaint. I don't know how we solve
that problem.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#14 Page 42
Bailey: I don't either, but if you come up with a way, we can talk about that.
Champion: We can talk...we can put it on a work session! (laughter)
Bailey: Yeah. Further discussion?
Wilburn: I guess the only thing I'm thinking of, um, in the one case, uh, we do
fulfill the compliance with posting of the ordinance, uh, and that's been
done for years I suspect, that way.
Dilkes: Are you talking about the Certified Mail issue?
Wilburn: Yeah, yeah. Um, and the other, I guess, if there were a way to consider
looking at, I'm not necessarily talking about, uh, a particular individual.. .
Champion: I know.
Wilburn: ...but I'm thinking of...if there was a way to, uh, given that there's some
winters that are more challenging, if there were some indication that, um,
this walk is regularly sanded, salted, uh, Mr. Thornberry mentioned some
type of letter or affidavit. If I had some indication from the company
that...I'm just, I'm just thinking out loud, if that were a way to, you know,
if, uh, if around that time I saw that, yeah, here's my receipt, here's...that,
uh, the company that they'd sand and salt did come out around - do you
see what I'm saying? I'm just trying to think of a way to quantify that.
Boothroy: Ross...
Wilburn: Have we done something like that in the past?
Boothroy: Well, when the company goes out to, uh, clear the sidewalk, uh, it's not
unusual that by the time they get out there it could, it might take a day or
two for them to get to the premises when you have a lot of snow, uh, if the
sidewalk is...is clear, they...they don't do any work. They walk away.
LJh, they don't charge us for the show-up call, uh, or anything like that.
So if they have a company that's doing it on a regular basis, uh, it should
be done, um, it's possible that you might catch it...catch them in between
because they're busy as well. But, but there's no way to really control for
that in a...in a winter like we had, uh, if the sidewalk is icy, if the
sidewalk is...is...is hazardous, it...it needs to be dealt with.
Wilburn: Yeah, and there's other reasons for that.
Boothroy: Right. We just, you know, can't come back every day and take a look
at...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#14
Wilburn: Thanks for that. I was just trying to...
Page 43
Boothroy: But we do, we have, you know, there's many times that...that people get
the walk done after we've (coughing, unable to hear) original complaint
and then, uh, we're not charged for anything and the owner's obviously
not charged either.
Wilburn: Okay, thank you.
Bailey: Thank you, Doug.
Thornberry: Dean Thornberry again. You know what, L ..we weren't, I mean, um, I
was charged for snow removal and they didn't have to remove the snow,
because we had shoveled it, along with the parking lot, because there's a
parking lot right in there also for the commercial area, so when Dr.
Zimmerman does it with the blade with the parking lot, his wife is the one
who's doing the sidewalks, and when I got the letter I went out there and
looked at it, and I wasn't notified that there was a problem, then I went out
and looked at it, and...and at that time it was fine, and there was no snow
on the sidewalk, and they didn't have to shovel the sidewalk. All they did
was dump this, uh, sand and salt...sand and salt mixture out...on the
sidewalk, and you could see that we had done it already, because you
could see below the sand, or I mean below the ice, the top of the ice that
the sand was there, but it was underneath the ice, and...and then we were
out, and so was everybody in town, so I don't...I think you could make an
exception in a few cases. I mean, it's not the 110 bucks which I've given
the City a lot more than 110 bucks, but, um, it's the fact that it's just not
right! And that's why I've spent my night here, uh, for...just, it's just not
right to charge somebody $110 for something that you'd already done
and... and it might've needed to be done at that time, and I even put more
on when I got it, but I...and I had done it before. So I think you can
make...it's not, you know, I think you can make exceptions, just be right.
Just...that's all I'm asking, I guess, is just be fair.
Champion: And what was the charge?
Thornberry: Pardon me?
Champion: The charge again? $110?
Thornberry: Yeah, $60 for spreading the sand and salt, and $50 for, uh, the
administration fee. That's $110, 60 and 50. (several commenting)
Boothroy: It's actually snow and ice; it's not just snow. LTh, and so if you go out and
the walk is icy, uh, even if it's been treated before, it's still icy. It needs to
be dealt with, uh, and...and you should constantly be retreating it, so
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#14 Page 44
that...I don't know all the details on Dean's property, but he was saying
that you could see the sand below the ice. Well, uh, it wasn't about
whether the snow was removed; it was about whether the ice was safe to
walk on.
Wilburn: It gets back to hazard mitigation, and in these situations we have to...like
Michael already pointed out, we do send someone out to visually verify so
it was a hazard at the time.
Hayek: You know, if we...if we want to examine the policy with a view toward
making a change, or some changes that are consistent across the board,
that's one thing, but I think in this instance we need to, uh, trust that staff
did its job and...
Champion: Oh, exactly!
Hayek: ... and be consistent, and we can't hold amini-evidentiary hearing on the
individual items on this list, and...
Champion: I'm a little horrified at the price.
Hayek: ...frustration to be on the list, but we just can't do it in a forum like this.
Champion: Right, of course.
Bailey: Further discussion? Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
Champion: I would like to find out how those fees are assessed. That seems...
Bailey: I think we can...we can do that. I mean, Matt is right. We can look at the
policy.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#18 Page 45
ITEM 18. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Bailey: LTh, let's start with Amy tonight. Nothing? Matt?
Hayek: Nothing tonight.
Bailey: Ross?
Wilburn: I just want to say, uh, good luck to all the community members that are
going to be going out on RAGBRAI, leaving Saturday for western Iowa
and good luck to North Liberty and encourage people to continue to get
out and, uh, volunteer for the folks that are coming through, and certainly
help North Liberty's economy, and I suspect that people will be coming
into Iowa City and Coralville. I'll be out doing my part, supporting the
corridor. I'm not sure if they were willing to unveil this, but there will be
several of us wearing these coming into North Liberty, quartercruise.com.
Um, everybody be safe, ride right, and have fun!
Bailey: Mike?
O'Donnell: Uh, just any, uh, information on the Iowa Avenue bridge, when that'll be
open? The sinkhole?
Lombardo: Uh, we've heard it preliminarily a month, but I haven't heard specific
dates and I can look into that for you.
O'Donnell: A month, that's amazing. (several talking) I heard the sinkhole was big
enough for a City bus, is that right?
Lombardo: Yeah.
O'Donnell: Amazing! Okay, thank you.
Bailey: Connie?
Champion: I just have one question. Do we have any control over dumpsters on
private land? Do we have any ordinances that cover dumpsters on private
land?
Karr: Are you talking about the alleys downtown?
Champion: No, I'm talking about like by an apartment building.
Dilkes: We have some restrictions, for example, on where the, um, garbage cans
have to be, but I'd have to have Doug here to...I don't know. We
may...we could control them; I don't know if we do.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.
#18
Page 46
Champion: Well, it's...the reason I'm asking is I'm, this is really the truth (laughter)
because I'm getting calls from a few people about dumpsters by their
buildings that are full of maggots and flies and nobody shuts them.
Dilkes: Yeah, we might be able to deal with that. Give Doug a call.
Champion: Okay. Sounds gross, doesn't it?
Bailey: Yes, quite. Mike?
Wright: I can't top maggoty dumpsters. Nothing here (laughter)
Bailey: Okay, um, I just wanted to, um, thank all the volunteers who have been in
the Parkview Terrace and other areas, um, doing flood recovery, and thank
you United Way for their volunteer center and the coordination. As we
move towards continued recovery, we really appreciate the volunteer
work, and I understand that we are calling for sandbag volunteers for this
weekend. So if you're interested in that, check out the City web site. We
are ready to remove sandbags, so we feel very positive that this flood
event is over. Check out the web site if you're interested in volunteering.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Regular Formal meeting of July 15, 2008.