Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-18 Transcription#2 Page 1 ITEM 2. OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARDS -Shimek Elementary Bailey: Would the students from Shimek Elementary please come forward. Okay, good evening. Thanks for being here. We're glad to have you. I think we have a Council Member who attended Shimek. Is that right, Mr. Hayek? Hayek: Yep, we were Shimek Sharks back in the day. Bailey: Are you still the Shimek Sharks? Are you holding a proud tradition and making Mr. Hayek proud and...(laughter)...okay. Well, we're glad you're here, and we're excited to hear why you're...why you've been selected for the Student Citizenship Awards, and so I'll hand the microphone to you. Introduce yourself and you can read your statement. James: Okay. Thank you for having me here tonight. My name is Alec James, and I'm a sixth grader from Shimek Elementary. I'm very honored to receive this award. I've always been taught that being a good citizen is an important trait. That is one of the reasons why I volunteered to help sandbag on Normandy Drive during the flood this summer. I don't live on Normandy Drive, but the people there really need help. I'm going to try to be a good citizen at school and at home. I'm very responsible and I work hard to help my family and do my best work at school. I want to thank my family and my grandparents for teaching me the importance of being a good citizen. I would also like to thank the (mumbled) teachers at Shimek for nominating me for this award. Thank you. (applause) Kosier: Hi, I'm Addison Kosier. I would like to thank my teachers and family for helping me know how to be a good citizen. To me citizenship means doing good things for others and for the community. Some things that I undertook were I donated $101 to the Animal Shelter. I had a garage sale and bake sale to raise the money for the animal victims of the flood. I also help our school's (mumbled) get their lunches. I'm a part of our gamma green team where we count boxtops and (mumbled). Thank you. (applause) Bailey: Thank you...thank you very much, and we appreciate all your work during the flood, both sandbagging and providing funding for our Animal Shelter. It was important that the whole community help out in that situation, and thank you. I want to read your awards here. I'll read one of them. They each have your name on them. For your outstanding qualities of leadership within Shimek Elementary, as well as the community, and for your sense of responsibility and helpfulness to others, we recognize you as an Outstanding Student Citizen. Your community is proud of you. And this is presented by the Iowa City City Council. (mumbled) Thank you. (applause) Your Shimek Sharks should make you proud! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #3 Page 2 ITEM 3. COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). Bailey: This is a time for members of our community to speak to the Council on items that are not on tonight's agenda. If you have a comment to make, please approach the podium, state your name for the record, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Bollinger: Good evening. I'm Jim Bollinger. I live on 1126 Sandusky Drive. My concern is that the, there's people in the neighborhood that go shopping and they bring their carts back home with `em. Unfortunately, they drop `em off in my front yard. That's my only concern. I've complained to the Iowa City Police about it. I've called. There is a gentleman in District A, I believe, that lives on Taylor, and I called him. I didn't get a reply from him, but that one day there was four carts taken off the block. The people on the, uh, Taylor part of Sandusky and Taylor are living there, and I've seen people around the house from me bring carts, drop `em off, put three bags of garbage in it, drops it right in front of the house or on the other side of Sandusky. The Police say there's nothing they can do about it, because the owners of the carts won't prosecute. To my understanding, it's an offense if they take `em off their property. I think that is...I'm being held to keep my sidewalk clean, my yard mowed, I think the stores that let these carts go to other places, if they're not fined by putting them out in the street and have them fined or whatever, or when the City garbage comes collects `em, they ought to just throw `em in the trucks and get rid of `em. I've tried. I'm getting frustrated with it, and that's why I'm here. Bailey: Thank you for your comments. Dieterle: I'm Caroline Dieterle, and I was happy to read in the paper that you are considering alternate side parking to deal with snow emergencies. Bailey: Caroline, we're going to be discussing that later. Dieterle: Oh, you are? On what...what item? Bailey: It's, uh, our snow emergency ordinance. It's item...I think 7. Karr: Seven. ' Bailey: So, if you'd like to make your comments then that would be terrific. Dieterle: All right. Bailey: Thanks, Caroline. Others who would like to comment on items not on tonight's agenda? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #3 Page 3 Brown: Hello. I am Katy Brown, and I live at 3222 Shamrock Drive. Actually I'm the one that's responsible for alast-minute printout you guys may have received regarding an invisible fence, um, I don't know if you guys are familiar with what I'm talking about. Champion: We have it. Brown: I'm just concerned that City Codes 841, that defines a fence as, um, a physical barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion, entry or exit made of posts and wires, boards, stone, brick, or similar materials. Invisible fencing systems using underground wire and electric power devices are not considered fencing for the purposes of this chapter. As a homeowner with a yard that's difficult to actually, uh, fence in, I did bring pictures of our easement if you'd like to pass those around. Um, that the City built in our backyard. Four to six feet up off either side of the easement we have this wire fencing that's under our grass, which would make a fence irregular and...and it's just not an option for our family. Um, City Code 846, um, where it says your...your pet has to be tethered or um, enclosed in a fence on the premise of the owner. I don't think is realistic. Um, I did make a suggestion that I think that invisible fences should be accepted by City Code so that I'm not fined, my animal's not confiscated by Animal Control, and it's just...not an option going forward. Do you have any questions? Bailey: Thank you, Katy. Champion: We should just put that on a work session. Bailey: Are others interested inputting that on a work session? O'Donnell: I'd like to, yeah. (several responding) Bailey: Okay. DiCarlo: Good evening. I'm Monique DiCarlo and I'm the Interim Sexual Assault Coordinator at the University of Iowa and the Director of the Women's Resource and Action Center, and I just wanted to quickly comment that I appreciated your thoughtful and caring dialog last night in last night's work session, um, about the Task Force recommendations, and I'm really grateful that you aren't letting the issue drop, even though we don't have a serial groper making the headlines. That's really critical that you stay steadfast in your commitment to address these issues. I, um, I heard I think Mayor Bailey, uh, quote me in saying that I thought that all of the recommendations in the Task Force, um, guidelines that were put forward and the staff's response to them were predicated on the coordination This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #3 Page 4 between the City and the University, and specifically having a City staff member assigned to coordinate that, and I hope that you do follow through with that, uh, suggestion, um, and I also believe that, uh, specifically you can encourage that person to link with the University of Iowa Anti- violence Coalition. The, uh, Student Government has a safety advocate position and I believe, uh, staff should connect with that person as well as the Interim Sexual Assault Coordinator. I wanted to a1so...I think missing from last night's, uh, dialog was a framework about why a coordinated response is so important, and I wanted to just remind...remind you of what the three aspects of a coordinated response are, and to quickly put in the framework of, from the recommendations where they fit. The first is that a coordinated response is concerned with, and can clearly point out, how we're addressing victim safety, and when you ask, uh, the Police Department to increase or to create a safety tab on its web site, that's one aspect of increasing, um, our response to encourage victim safety. Or, um, working with the Public Safety Director at the University to share in meeting the expense for. the UI, um, Nite Ride program. That program was specifically created in response to a threat that was, uh, evident in our...in our community in the city, um, with the serial groper. And I know that, um, Chuck is interested in exploring with you the possibility of supporting that financially, even if it's minimal. I think it would be helpful and it, again, would show a commitment from the City, and also last night you discussed the importance of making cabs safer, as resources for, um, folks to get home safely in the evening, but also there is a concern just with, um, people, women specifically, being alone with cab drivers, so I think, uh, making a condition of licensure be one of, uh, receiving education on these issues would be also really important to increase victim safety. The second, um, opportunity to increase a coordinated response is to hold offenders accountable in a way that encourages them to not repeat the offensive behavior, and I don't think that our recommendations did enough to address those issues, so I won't speak to that by just saying though, I think we perhaps missed an opportunity there. Um, the third is that, we need to change the climate in the community by creating a deterrence to the use of violence, um, as an acceptable practice in the first place, and there was a lot of...of recommendations in this area, and I...I get concerned when I hear people soft-pedal the importance of messaging campaigns or education opportunities as things that we just need to do, or others need to do. You need to do those things. You have an opportunity as leaders to, uh, take a stand, to intervene, to say that you care about these issues, and I think you do, and I want to thank you for when you do do that. I will also say that you will all individually be invited to participate in upcoming campaigns, and I hope that you, um, take advantage of those opportunities to work collaboratively in the community, uh, to participate in white ribbon campaigns, as well as other messaging campaigns that will be implemented in the coming months. Um, in closing I guess I just want to encourage you to keep, um, strong in your commitment to find a staff This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #3 Page 5 member that will report. I think Amy asked that we, that you, uh, set up reporting process in place for the City to come forward, or City staffer to come forward and give you an update on that coordination piece, and I think that accountability piece is really critical. Thank you. Bailey: Thanks, Monique. Others wishing to comment? On items not on tonight's agenda? Smith: Hi, my name's Karina Smith. I'm at 208 Amhurst, um, you may recognize my name. I sent you a couple letters recently, um, tonight I wanted to speak about, um, the recent increase in crime in the area, and I wanted to, uh, support Amy Charles in what she...the letter that she wrote to you I've read it and I very much agree with what she said, um, the recent increase in violent crime in the area including armed robberies, burglaries, assaults, drugs, weapons, etc., is very alarming. Um, there seems to be ongoing criminal activity in various parts of this town, and I think some of the criminals doing this are finding that we're not really very prepared to deal with this. Um, and I think that's being taken advantage of. I think in the past, um, you know, we haven't had to deal with this level of criminal activity on such an ongoing basis, and my question is, why should we have to? Why should people in this town have to live in fear? Why should we be subjected to that again and again? Um, and another question that I have is, what has changed? Um, why now is this occurring more frequently, and um, I just haven't heard a lot of discussion, um, from you about this, and so I guess the crime and the relative silence is a bit troubling to me, um, I'm sure you're all aware of what has been happening, and I know you're all deeply concerned about the...the safety of the citizens here, but I think the thing that troubles me the most is that, um, these are not just things. This is not just property. These are people, I mean, behind every armed robbery, behind every break-in, um, there are people whose lives are being affected. I mean, these people have been victimized. They have been violated. Some of these have been traumatized, you know, those guys that were very brutally assaulted, um, I just don't think we can tolerate having the peace of our community shattered by the criminal behavior of a small number of people. It's a basic human right that we feel safe in our homes. That we feel safe on the streets, and that each of us can live free from fear of crime, um, so I just...I'd like to see this become more of a priority, um, I think all of us have great compassion for others. I think all of us want to see others, um, thrive and take care of them, and um, we really care about other people's welfare and their well-being, um, and I think we need to uphold their basic, uh, human rights to live and not have to live in fear, and I know you're on a limited budget. I know there's only so many things that you can do, but I guess it would be nice to talk about what can we do within that budget and can we start a public dialog about this? Um, I know there's other towns in Iowa that have been dealing with this, and I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #3 Page 6 think, you know, from what I've read they've had some success with certain initiatives. You know, is there anything that we can learn from them, um, I just ask you as leaders to take the first step and to open up this conversation. Um, it's not going to go away on its own and it's not going to go away over night, um, lastly, I want to thank you for your dedication to Iowa City. This summer you showed great leadership in dealing with the floods, and Mayor Bailey, I know you had to make some very difficult decisions, and so I guess that's why I feel I can come and say this to you, because I feel like you really care about Iowa City and um, I have faith that, um, you will address this issue in the near future, and that you will do what's needed to insure our safety. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Wright: I would just say in (mumbled) we were discussing, uh, reinstating a Crime Prevention Unit in the Police Department this last evening. Smith: Okay. Good, good! Wright: ...and the watch program. Smith: I'm glad to hear about that. Good! Bailey: Others wishing to comment? Okay, we'll move in to the next part of our agenda. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 7 ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. a) AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM PARHING REQUIREMENT FOR HOUSEHOLD LIVING USES IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS (CB-10) ZONE AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "HOUSEHOLD" TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED PERSONS ALLOWED TO RESIDE IN ONE DWELLING UNIT FROM FIVE (5) UNRELATED PERSONS TO THREE (3) UNRELATED PERSONS IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2), CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB- 2), CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT (CB-5) AND CENTRAL BUSINESS (CB-10) ZONES. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) The public hearing is open. Miklo: I'm Robert Miklo with the Department of Planning and Community Development. I'd like to start by showing you a map of the areas primarily affected by the, uh, proposed amendments. Um, the, uh, the downtown area, the CB-10, Central Business District, uh, the Central Business Support zone, which is the CB-5, uh, basically to the south and a little bit to the north of downtown, as well, and the Central Business Service zone is the CB-2 zone. Our, uh, current policy and regulations for parking in the downtown were developed approximately 30 years ago. Um, when the type of development downtown was pretty much limited to, uh, retail and office uses. It has been the policy of the City since then, uh, to provide parking in our ramps and...and in metered spaces on the street. Uh, the idea was these spaces were available for businesses, employees, and customers. The policy did not contemplate large-scale residential development, um, nor does our current regulation provide for, uh, enough parking to, uh, address the demand for large apartment complexes. We recently have had a, uh, increased interest in intensive residential development in the downtown. This can be, of course, a good thing, um, it adds to the vitality and the customer base of our downtown businesses. But if parking is not provided, either by the City in our public facilities, or by the, uh, developers, it can have some negative ramifications. The, uh, current regulations that are in place for the CB-10 zone would allow somewhere between a 10 and 12-story building, uh, with commercial on the ground floor, and apartments on the upper floors, and require no dedicated parking spaces for such...for such construction. Another issue that has been discussed with recent downtown area rezonings has been a concern about the preponderance of four and five-bedroom apartments, uh, in these new buildings. Uh, there's a concern that such apartments are attractive to young, uh, young students, whereas apartments with one, two, and three-bedrooms, uh, would be attractive to a wider market, and thus This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 8 promote the diversity that we're trying to achieve downtown. LTh, a diversity of residents, young professionals, retirees, graduate students, in addition to undergraduate students would support commercial diversity of...of businesses downtown. To address these concerns with recent rezonings, such as the Hieronymus Square rezoning that occurred on Burlington Street, we negotiated a parking requirement and a requirement for payment of a parking impact fee to assure that adequate parking is being provided for the new development. We also, uh, limited the occupancy, by limiting the number of bedrooms to three, a maximum of three per apartment. At the time we were discussing this with the Planning and Zoning Commission and then the Council, uh, both the, uh, Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recognized the need to look at the issue for the entire downtown, and just not deal with it on a piecemeal basis. Uh, therefore, we're proposing some amendments to the zoning code. The proposed amendments would require one and two-bedroom apartments provide one parking space per dwelling unit, and that three, uh, bedroom apartments provide two parking spaces per unit. Uh, the ordinance includes a special exemption provision to waive parking requirements for historic buildings and to allow, uh, the required spaces to be provided in public parking ramps, if space is available. The amendments would also reduce the number of unrelated occupants from the current provision, which allows five unrelated persons down to three. So essentially, putting a cap of three bedrooms per, uh, dwelling unit, um, the existing four and five-bedroom apartments that are in these zones would be grandfathered in. LTh, based on the Council's discussion at your informal meeting, at your workshop last night, uh, there are some concerns about how the proposed parking requirements would affect, uh, redevelopment of small properties, where there may...may not be possible to provide any parking. Um, at this point staff recommends that you defer consideration of the parking requirement, while we, um, go back and look at the question and uh, bring back some alternatives for your consideration. Uh, although we need some time to look at the details regarding parking requirements for small properties, it's staff's understanding that there is, uh, consensus between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, uh, that for large-scale residential developments there is a need for some parking requirement, uh, that the City itself in the public system is not able to, uh, address the demand. IJh, so at this point we recommend that you vote on amendments regarding the change in maximum occupancy in the CB-10 zone, the Central Business zone, the CB-5 zone, which is the Central Business Support zone, the CB-2 zone, which is the, uh, Central Business Service zone, and then the CC-2, Community Commercial zone, uh, lowering the number of...of, uh, unrelated occupants from five to three. Uh, we would recommend that you defer the amendments pertaining to parking in the CB-10 zone to your December 16t" meeting. In the meantime, uh, we'll look at that question again, review it with the Planning and Zoning This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 9 Commission, and come back to you with some alternatives. Be happy to try to answer any questions. Bailey: Any questions for Bob? Dilkes: Do you mean the December 2°a meeting, Bob? Miklo: Uh, no, we wouldn't anticipate being, uh, able to turn it around in that time. Champion: Let's...let me give you a `for instance.' Um, let's say that somebody builds another building downtown, um, that's going to have condos up above it, and I wanted to buy one of those, but I thought one was too small so I wanted to buy two, `cause I wanted four bedrooms, one I could use for a study, and three bedrooms for my large family, that would not be allowed under this current.. . Miklo: Well, what wouldn't be allowed would be for it to be occupied by three or more unrelated occupants. If it's a family, then um, this...the ordinance (mumbled) Champion: Oh, so I could have more than three bedrooms. I just couldn't have more than three unrelated people living there. Okay. Wright: But you could pack in your entire family. Champion: I don't think so! (laughter) I don't even think Clark's could build an apartment big enough for me! Bailey: Other questions for Bob? Hayek: Maybe, but I'd like to...to hear the public commentary. Bailey: Okay. Thanks, Bob. Okay, others wishing to public, or comment at the public hearing? Holland: My name is Joe Holland. I'm here tonight representing Clark family and Ms. Champion, I think they'll take that as a challenge (laughter) and if you identify the site and tell them to proceed. Um, I'm here basically for three purposes...I think there are three elements to what's going on and that one is the process this came about through, the other the substance of these amendments, and the third is what's the solution, both short and long- term. This proposal came to the Council with zero public input, uh, the staff, uh, bylaw published notice in the paper, you know, the little tiny, fine-print notice of public hearing, and they sent a copy to P&Z amendment to the Homebuilder's, but frankly not many single-family This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 10 residences are being built in downtown Iowa City, so I don't think anybody who really was concerned about this appreciated what was happening. I know that neither the Clarks nor I knew anything about this until late in the day on Friday, November 7, which was about three weeks after the public hearing in front of P&Z. And that was just a chance, uh, conversation that led to discovering these amendments were even coming to Council. Uh, tonight as part of your consent agenda you accepted the minutes from the October 16th P&Z meeting. Um, there're a couple of interesting things about those minutes. The Chair is quoted in those minutes as saying she's surprised that no one was present to give public comment. Uh, if you look at the minutes, you'll see...and there's no one present on any item on the agenda, other than the Commissioners and staff. Uh, one member asked in response to these proposed amendments if it was possible the developers build buildings the way they do, meaning apartments above the first floor being the driving force behind the project, because it's the only way it's economically feasible to do so. Uh, the Chair responded to that, that she didn't think that was the case, but if it was, she couldn't support this measure. Uh, another member, and the same member came back and expressed concern that the possibility that these changes will stunt future growth in downtown, and finally another Commissioner that was to be present tonight said that he feels he's proceeding with inadequate data, or that he would prefer that the data they proceeded upon was more extensive. I assume that means both input from the staff, and also input from the public. Uh, it's a little ironic because the City in my experience has been pretty diligent about, uh, trying to advise the public when major changes are afoot, and I think probably part of it is this wasn't regarded as a major change. Uh, every day when I drive in to work I see the signs posted over in the Miller Orchard neighborhood, uh, talking about the neighborhood plan meetings. This isn't a neighborhood plan, but it's an illustration of how a very small change can make a huge difference in what happens in a community, and this is a huge change for downtown. Um, in the past, since 2000, the only people who have built residential properties downtown are here tonight. That's the Clark family and it's the Moen Group. I think both of them will tell you if you adopt these amendments as they're currently structured, you'll not see any residences built in downtown Iowa City. And I would consider that to be a huge change, and part of what's happening here too is a lot of people acted on, in reliance on the City's prior position. I and Jim Clark and one of his sons and...met with Karin Franklin, the previous head of Planning, met with Steve Atkins, previous City Manager, on more than one occasion. One of the requests was to ask the City to adopt an ordinance stopping four and five-bedroom apartments from being built. The answer was aflat-out every time we talked about that - no, we're not going to do that. We want those four and five-bedroom apartments. We want those downtown. We want dense development. So here we're in an ironic position where something we were trying to advocate for as long as ten This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 11 years ago is now coming to fruition. We also, the topic of parking came up and Planning was absolutely firm -there will not be parking downtown. You will not put parking under these buildings. Now these buildings that do have parking under `em -the hotel, uh, property Clarks built on Iowa Avenue, you have to have a special exception to put parking. Currently it's not allowed. People have relied on that City position for probably the last 10 to 15 years, and made some very large investments in property with the idea they were going to be able to build them to those rules. And we understand rules change and rules come and go, but they shouldn't happen...those changes shouldn't happen without some meaningful notice to the people who are stakeholders in the area. And there was no meaningful notice here. That's sort of the picture of the process and how we got to where we are right now, and why this is a big deal. iJh, is there really a problem in the CB-10 zone? Uh, as I said, all the people who built apartments in the CB-10 zone are here tonight. Since 2000, there've been more or less 250 residential units built in CB-10 zone. Out of those, 33 are four and five-bedrooms. That's a fairly small percentage, and if the big concerns.. . Champion: I'm sorry. How many...I didn't hear...how many are? Holland: Thirty-three four and five-bedrooms. Out of roughly 250 -you'd have to go through and do an individual count, but that's the best estimate we could come up with. Uh, there has been a lot more of that kind of activity, the four and five-bedrooms in the CB-5 zone. And my experience has been a Council meetings a very poor place to try and craft legislation and talk about little nuances in one section of the ordinance, because, uh, there are a lot of interaction between the zones and various parts of the zoning ordinance. So I'm not going to get into the all the why's and where for's so that other people may address that. LTh, requiring parking downtown is essentially going to stop residential development, and there are a lot of reasons for that. One is that the sites that are available downtown tend to be rather small. iJh, if...you don't put together a big parcel unless you wait a lot of years and spend a lot of money and I don't...just don't think that's on the horizon. Um, there's less street and alley access in downtown, in the CB-10 zone, than there is in CB-5 zones, CC-2, and some of the other outlying zones. Uh, using City parking is not realistic. I don't know how familiar you are with the zoning ordinance, but if you're in another zone and you want to have off-site parking, in other words you don't have enough parking on your site that you're legally required to have. You can put that off-site. You have to have a permanent easement on that other piece of property. One thing that seems clear from the discussions we've had is the City is not willing to grant permanent easements in the City ramps or on the surface lots to developers so they can build buildings. That ties up those spaces in perpetuity. So it...it seems an easy answer. Let's use City facilities to provide parking, but on This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 12 practical and legal level it probably just doesn't work. Every ramp and every surface lot I know of right now already has a waiting list to get spaces in it. I tried to get one in the Market Street lot near my office and it took approximately six months to get a permit. I just don't think the City supply's there, and the parking impact fees that are paid south of Burlington, don't really address that. They, uh, you pay a $7,000 per apartment fee, but you don't get a parking space for that. There's nothing guaranteed. All it does is fund, uh, potential building of parking ramps. LTh, so parking, like a lot of things, drives development. Parking in practically all the zones drives development. LTh, I think the Council should be concerned about what this would do to downtown property values. Right now, purchases are made based upon the rules as they currently exist, that you don't have to have parking and you have a certain level of density. If you take that away, the values in downtown are going to start to erode. Uh, I know that Planning staff talked to the Assessor. We've talked to the Assessor too. Uh, we gave the Assessor more facts, and I think generally...Denny Baldridge can come speak to you if that's your inclination. I think he would agree that over time, if these, uh, amendments have the potential to be eroding the property tax base in downtown Iowa City. Bailey: Mr. Holland, you need to conclude your remarks. Holland: I...I appreciate that. Um, let's talk about what the solutions are. First of all, I think an easy short-term solution is you could adopt this ordinance and just take the CB-10 out of it. Wherever CB-10 is inserted into these amendments, take it out. `Cause you're...you're, uh, risking serious harm to address a problem that may not even exist. Set up a forum or a task force, that involves the stakeholders. Don't just send this back to Planning and Zoning for one discussion there. This...this really is a serious issue for the City and for the people who own property downtown, not just for the people who are here tonight, but for other property owners. So I think at a minimum you need to have something like those neighborhood meetings, um, then have your public hearing. IJh, delay the...alternatively delay the effective dates of these. Delay it for two or three years. Give people a chance to, uh, adapt to those new rules, but uh, don't assume that simple, what appear to be simple surface changes in the zoning ordinance don't have big impacts on the people who, uh, have done and are doing things in this community, and would like to continue doing things. Any questions I can answer? Bailey: Thank you. Others wishing to comment at the public hearing? Just asking for others who wish to comment at the public hearing. Moen: Hello. My name is Marc Moen and I live at 221 E. College Street, #1301, um, and my concern or interest in this is on the parking issue, and I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 13 understand that, uh, the staff has recommended that that part of it be deferred, so I don't...I'm not quite sure how to proceed, if I should... Bailey: You can speak (both talking) Champion: ...have you speak to it. Moen: Okay. The, uh, let me give you a specific example, um, under this ordinance, or the proposed amendment, the Starbuck's building that we did, that sent empty for a year before we bought it. And it sat empty because it was being marketed as a two-level commercial space, which really wasn't feasible. We converted the second floor to loft apartment, and put Starbuck's on the main floor. We couldn't have bought that building had we not known we could put that apartment up there. That was the only way the bank would have financed it, and it's the only way that we could make it work. Same with the old Gringo's building, which is now Graze, where we've converted the upstairs to two really incredible loft spaces. One is just leased to one of the deans of the, of one of the University departments. So it's attracting people -not students -which is the goal of these amendments, but I think the attempt that, and I... and I agree with the goal, with the goals that are set forth in the memo. But I think the way they're...it's been proposed with the parking is going to actually deter any further development. We can't, I mean, there are several other buildings downtown where I would like to do what we did with Starbuck's and with Graze, but if we don't know...we have to get a special exception to get parking, and we don't know if we're going to be able to get that special exception. We don't know if there's going to be parking available in the ramps. A bigger issue for me is the Wells Fargo building on the Ped Mall. Um, in terms of specific projects that we've already invested in. That was purchased solely for the purpose of taking it down and putting up a significant building. The way the ordinance is structured now, we could...could, there's no guarantee. But we might be able to get half of the spaces that are going to be required waived if we are able to get those spaces in a ramp that's within 600 feet of the front door of that building. That's a question mark. We don't know if we can do that. The other 50% of those spaces have to come...have to be within 300 feet, not in a...not in a City structure, but apparently on somebody's private property. That's impossible because in the CB-10 you can't have a parking, you can't have a commercial parking lot. So somehow we've got to get the other half of the spots, if we do a ten-story building there, and say we do nine floors of apartments or eight floors of apartments at four units per floor, which would be roughly like Vogel House. That would be...we'd have to get half of...suppose they're all one-bedrooms. We're talking about somewhere between 32 and 36 apartments, half of those spaces have to come in a parking lot within 300 feet of that building, and it has to be anon-cancelable lease or agreement that runs with the land, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 14 which would tie up, if you could find it, it would tie up that property essentially in perpetuity, for parking, which is exactly the opposite I think of what you're trying to accomplish. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Now I've talked with the staff and I left a message today. I think that's part of what they're trying to work through, um, and hopefully we can reach, you know, we...we end up with a proposal that's actually workable, but the way it's written now, you know, there's a chance at getting half the spots in the ramp and then we gotta find somebody who's willing to lease space to us forever, for the other spots. And it's just not workable. One other thing I wanted to just point out to you. Even the Plaza Towers project, which has maximized the...the parking underground. We have 73 spots on almost an acre...it goes under, the parking goes under the entire site, not just under the building. We squeezed every spot we could in there, and there's 73 spots. If we were to build another building and we'd like to of that magnitude along the north side of Burlington Street, we would not be able to get the requisite parking on site. So we'd again be having to get a special exception. There are 110 residential units if you include the hotel at Plaza Towers, and we have 73 parking spots. If we were to build another building on that scale, we would not put a hotel in it so we'd need parking space for all the units in it would be roughly in that range, of 100 or 110 units. And again, we'd be, I mean, we'd be asking to use, I guess other spots in the ramp, and if so, how do you, you know, when do you do that and how do you do it and how do you get a commitment from the City. I...it just doesn't seem very workable to me. So, I, you know, I applaud the goals that the staff has set forth in the memo. I agree with them. I think we need a diverse population downtown. I'll point out to you that historically and today, between 25 and 50% of the residents in Vogel House are non-students. We have professors that have lived there since the day we opened. They're still living there. We have several doctors, staff physicians from the hospital that live there. They have no problem with the parking issue. Um, and...and to think that, you know, to see that site where Wells Fargo is and to think nothing can be developed there, unless we find somebody that has a parking lot with 18 spots within 300 feet of that building, I mean, it shuts that project down. It's not going to happen. Bailey: Thank you. Moen: Thank you. Bailey: Other comments? Clark: Hello. I'm Jeff Clark. First I'd like to say I do applaud the goals here that we have going on, to get a mixed diversity downtown and different types of living. Um, my major concern is that we are developers in the downtown area, and over the past, oh, two years or so we have acquired This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 15 properties to develop. Um, based upon the current zoning ordinance. Uh, it's kind of a disappointment when you find out about a zoning amendment that slips by you and you talk to a...a...an individual that has nothing to do with it, that uh, tells you what's happening and then you have to call...call the Planning department to find out what's going on. Um, if this zoning ordinance goes through, uh, we essentially have three properties -one which we have plans designed to, well, real close to get ready to build on, uh, all of our projects will essentially fall through. Um, you know, as Marc spoke, it's going to make it very difficult to, uh, construct under these, uh, new amendments and guidelines, um, I mean, really the...the overall effect...CB-5 has had the most development of the bigger units, uh, CB-10 has not had as much. Uh, I mean, we can see what...what's happening. We want to make downtown a nicer place, but we also need to have development to keep the land values going up. LJh, if we don't continue to, you know, buy property based upon the development value, values are going to drop. Uh, I did talk to Denny Baldridge and I believe Chad is....is the commercial assessor down there at the Iowa City Assessor's and they agreed with me in speaking about what's going to happen, essentially some of this land's going to have to be resold and it'll be resold only based upon what's currently there. Um, we just want to keep values going up downtown, uh, you know, we...we have a high stake in downtown properties so we want to keep things on the up and up. Um, as far as parking goes, you know, there are alternatives. I mean, being restricted from putting parking on site to being required to have parking is, you know, a long stretch. Uh, most of the sites downtown in the CB-10 zone are of the smaller size, or of a mixed size, making it difficult to get parking on many of them, or...or the required amount of parking. Um, you know, it'd be nice to have a discussion, or to, you know, strike the CB-10 zone from this amendment and uh, have the Planning staff set up, you know, community meetings or with the developers and uh, anybody else who wants to attend, and set up some guidelines that, uh, everybody could, you know, get together and talk about and make work for everybody. Um, there are ways to make things work, to keep CB-10 viable. Um, the last thing I want to talk about is the nonconforming. We've built several buildings in those zones over the last ten years. Now they'd all become nonconforming. Uh, this causes an issue if a tornado comes through again, something to that degree, and wipes out those buildings, you're essentially going to be able to get the commercial with one level of residential above it in the CB-10 zone. Um, that...basically you take from, you know, Burlington, Gilbert, up to Clinton, and uh, on through downtown. I mean, it'd be one level buildings. Many of those buildings do not have parking. You could not put parking back above them. Um, you know, what I'd like to see is something designed in there that would state that buildings can be rebuilt as is, instead of having, I believe it's a 70% destruction clause that you'd have to conform to new. Um, that way we can maintain what's there and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 16 they could be rebuilt as is. Um, I just hope this is looked at, um, I mean, like I said, I applaud what...what is trying to happen here, but uh, I think it needs to be looked at further in the CB-10 zone. So my recommendation would be to strike the CB-10 zone, uh, the other zones, you know, with the exception of, uh, putting a nonconformity clause in there, you know, I'm for. Um, other than that...I, uh... Champion: Your building on Iowa Avenue where you had some ability to access the rear because it's right on the alley. Do you know how many...do you know how many parking places you have under that building? Clark: I think there's roughly 20. Champion: ...20. Do you know how many apartments are in that? Clark: Eighteen, I believe. (several talking) 217 Iowa Avenue. (several talking) Champion: But there aren't a lot of buildings downtown that have that kind of access. Don't have that much footprint. Clark: That's right. Actually, the building that, uh, we have pretty much underway that we'll be stopped on is going to be located at 328 E. Washington Street, um, it was going to be called the Columbus Apartments. That was going to be just four-story, 16 unit apartment building, um, I mean, I don't know. Here's a quick elevation of it, if you want to hand it around. Wright: How many bedrooms did you plan for each unit? Clark: There'd be 16 four-bedroom apartments in there. Another item would be also...it'd be nice to see an effective date, if this was to go through. I mean, the property there was paid for based upon, you know, the 16 units if not more, and uh, essentially if this ordinance goes through, um, I would say that we'd be lucky to get roughly five three-bedrooms on there. Bailey: And this is next to Ecumenical Towers, correct? Clark: That is correct. There would be parking in the rear there, uh, approximately 12 spaces. If approved. Bailey: Thank you. Hayek: And, Jeff, that limitation you mentioned on the building that you're planning on Washington Street, um, is that a result of the occupancy restriction, the parking restriction, both? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 17 Clark: Well, we'd be limited to three bedrooms, that'd be the first, but a parking is a major factor. Due to the fact that in order to get 16 units, uh, even if there's three bedrooms, we'd be required 32 parking spaces, and I can only really provide 12 in there, plus the, uh, topographical features of that land are slanted, so it makes it very difficult. Hayek: Thanks. Bailey: Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Bailey: Other comments? 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Dilkes: Um, if you are going to defer part of this ordinance, or all of it, then we should continue the public hearing with respect to that piece of it. Bailey: So, Bob made the suggestion of splitting these out, and um, deferring the parking portion, and you have the ordinance separated. Champion: I'd like to defer the whole thing, um, I don't know how other people feel, but I...I like the idea of taking the CB-10 out of here, because it will totally halt the, uh, development in the CB-10, and that was our fear last night from some of us. You're going to make it impossible for people to develop property that they already own, or would want to buy. Um, I don't see how in some of those smaller buildings that don't have good alley access and there's a lot of `em, I don't see how you'd ever get any parking. There's certainly no place to put a surface parking lot downtown, unless you tear down a building like the mall. Wright: ...have to allow surface parking lots downtown anyway. Champion: Exactly! Bailey: So... Champion: I mean, I think, I mean I agree the philosophy of this, uh, change is...is good. I like...I like that, but I think it's impractical. (several talking) It's a motion. O'Donnell: Second. Correia: Well, no, there's no motions right now, right, because we need to... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 18 Karr: It'd be a motion to continue the public hearing. Bailey: Oh, but I want to clarify, because you just spoke to parking, and we can actually.. . Wright: You want to defer both, but you only spoke to parking. Bailey: Yeah. That's why I just wanted to clarify. Champion: Well, I'm...I do want to defer both, because I'd like to think about taking the CB-10 out of this. Correia: Well, and I guess when I read the minutes and saw that...of the Planning and Zoning Commission and saw that there were no comments, I mean, that was concerning to me, and I wondered about that, um, and I...I don't want to sit up here and piece...piece and part of what we have before us. Champion: No, I don't either. That's why I want to defer it. Correia: I'd like it to go, right, defer the whole thing. Have it go back to Planning and Zoning, include meaningful input from impacted business and residents and, I mean, I think that that's how we like to see things come before us, not that we're going to make a decision that everybody's going to feel good about, but it doesn't seem that there is the opportunity, felt like there was meaningful notice and opportunity for reaching out to get that input. Bailey: There was nothing different about our process. Our process was as we always do it. There was nothing unusual about that. I just want to clarify that. This was not...this was not, I mean, there was no intent. If people aren't aware, it's because they haven't paid attention to the process and these are people who are very used to and accustomed to how things work around here. So, you know, I'm not going to...I just want to bring up that point about the process. There was nothing flawed about it. It was surprising indeed that Iowa City didn't have comments on this, but um.. . Champion: Well, we have them now, so what difference does it make? Bailey: That's exactly my point. Champion: That's why we have public hearings. Bailey: That's why we...that's why it comes to Council. So I...you know, the thought of sending it back because there was not enough comment, um, concerns me. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 19 Correia: Well, I mean, I do...I do think there's the ability to be more proactive on our end. I think when Housing Inspection Services was, you know, doing changes on, you know, the building codes, you know, I saw the Inspection Services be proactive and held meetings with effected parties and we got that type of input back. (several talking) Wright: ...same time we just had, um, change in the zoning code for the apartment signs. We all remember the permanent signs on the...on the rental properties. Um, I don't believe there was advance notice to the apartment owner's association, but they were watching what was going on at P&Z and they showed up. O'Donnell: I don't think the intention here is that anything was done wrong deliberately. It's...it's just that people were...were, I missed it or whatever happened, but I...I think we're beating a dead horse there. The fact is they...they did not...they did not know and did not comment on it, and that concerns me. I was concerned last night about the amount of parking, and I'm also concerned about reducing, um, reducing the apartment sizes. Due to the fact that, um, people have purchased property downtown, um, with a certain set of guidelines in place, and now that's subject to change, and that concerns me. So I...I too favor, um, just deferring this until we have more time to think about it and maybe get more input. Wright: I absolutely do not want to defer both pieces of this. I think that's the wrong approach to take, um, if we are going to try and do planning based on...planning for the City based on what individuals' plans are for the future, we'll never be able to change anything because it's always going to interfere with somebody's plans. Champion: But there are things that people can live with. For instance, one of the (mumbled) information I'd want to know is how many spaces has the University leased out of our parking ramps. Uh, if this, if these spaces, uh, can be used for residential units downtown, then that's our parking dilemma. Maybe they'll have to build their own parking ramps somewhere, but I... Wright: I don't object to detaching the parking and the occupancy and having one deferred, the vote here having two votes, two different votes to defer, but I don't want to bundle these together. I don't object to (mumbled) Bailey: I heard the most concerns about parking, and I think that that merits a closer look. Not necessarily, I mean, and if the process is sending it back to P&Z, I'm fine with that, but I thought this process was fine and at this level, we...we have been made aware of some challenges with the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 20 parking. The occupancy, this is something we talked about, um, and from what I heard last night, there seemed to be general consensus that this is something we needed to address, um, in...in our downtown area, not just in the surrounding areas. Admittedly, the four and five-bedrooms have been built in the, mostly in the CB-5, but our downtown, um, market study supports getting a diversity of...of residents downtown. People have generally spoken in support of that goal. The concern seems to be parking, and I think we have a nice opportunity to pull that out, look at that, have these discussions, have the process at whatever level it needs to happen, and address some of this, some of the occupancy concerns. And so, I would just...I would just support moving ahead on one as they've split it out, and...and talking about parking, um, when did we want to defer it - to the 16th? (several commenting) O'Donnell: Well, we...we had, what was it? Thirty-three units are...are over three bedroom, is that out of 250, is that what I recall? And I think that's...I think that's fine downtown. I...what's that? Champion: That's not just in... Bailey: That's CB-10. Wright: That's just the CB-10. O'Donnell: That's CB-10, yeah. So I...I think pulling CB-10 out makes a great deal of sense too, and I am for deferring all of this because I...I really don't think we have all the information we need right now. Hayek: I haven't spoken yet, um, I uh, I like the...I like the intent behind, uh, this proposal, and I support the general objectives, and I actually don't sense there's a great deal of...of opposition to that for many, uh, portions of the community. The overall objectives, and I am concerned about, uh, commercial space downtown. I'm concerned about the lack of office space, and I'm concerned about the lack of, um, diversity, of housing, um, and I think these things are critical to a downtown Iowa City in this age of creative economy competition, uh, I want people to have choices as to where they locate for purposes of living and where they locate, uh, for purposes of work, um, I am supportive of the...of the occupancy, uh, limits provided here and we've got sufficient concern from a variety of places, including uh, the Police Department, uh, but uh; I've got some concerns and I mentioned them last night about parking, um, we heard about that last night. We heard about, uh, them today, as well, uh, especially as they relate to either existing structures where, uh, any sort of redevelopment that doesn't tear it down, uh, makes the installation of parking an impossibility, or smaller, uh, properties where the sheer footprint of the property makes it unfeasible and feasible to put parking, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 21 um, that's where I'm in particular having a problem on this parking issue, and if you're a developer of a lot like that, uh, to get around providing your own parking, you've...you face two risks. One is, uh, going through the special exception process, uh, and then the second risk is finding and securing long-term parking in a City ramp, and those are two independent risks that I fear would have a chilling effect on...on development. Um, so I like the idea of de-coupling these two issues, uh, and I would...I would support that. I think we need to look at this parking, uh, either...and come back with better information and...and uh, some suggestions to address these concerns that...that we're talking about, on...on parking, uh, and maybe doing so will, uh, allay our concerns and maybe it won't. Um, but I don't think we're at that point tonight. Bailey: Okay, so Connie... Champion: My motion was to defer all of it, and I think Mike seconded it. (several talking) We should just vote. Get it off the table. Bailey: Okay. So, roll call. Karr: It's a motion. Bailey: Motion. All those in favor of deferring both of these items, or the entire, um, I guess we're (several talking) the entire ordinance. Karr: To the 16t''~ Bailey: To the 16th, say aye. Those opposed same sign. (mumbled) Okay, motion fails. All right. Next up, what do you want to do? Wright: Um, I would move that we reconsider the... Karr: Are we going to close...are we going to close the public hearing or... Dilkes: (several talking) let's talk about continuing and deferring at the same time. Wright: I would move to defer the discussion on parking and the CB-10 until December 16th, but that we go ahead with the initial vote on the occupancy. Champion: Could you separate those two motions so I could vote one.. . Wright: One at a time -move to defer the parking to December 16tH Dilkes: And continue the public hearing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Champion: Second. Page 22 Bailey: Moved by Wright, seconded by Champion to defer until the 16th, and to continue the public hearing on the parking portion. Discussion? All those in favor say aye. Those opposed. No? Okay. Motion carries. The parking portion is deferred `til December 16th and that public hearing is continued. Wright: And I would, uh, move to, and the word just shot right out of my head. Move to, uh, approve occupancy, that's not the... Bailey: We're going to close the public hearing on this occupancy. Wright: Move to close the public hearing on occupancy, and uh.. . Dilkes: Go ahead and close the public hearing on occupancy. Bailey: Public hearing on this portion (bangs gavel) the occupancy is closed. All right. Now a motion. Champion: Nobody voted on that. Bailey: We closed the public hearing. Wright: We just closed the public hearing. Bailey: I can do that. Wright: Um, I move the definition of household, uh, to reduce the number of unrelated persons as spelled out in the, uh, ordinance. Hayek: Second. Correia: In all the (mumbled) Wright: In all the listed zones. Correia: Right. Bailey: Okay. Moved by Wright, seconded by Hayek. Discussion? Okay. Roll call. Okay, item carries 4 to 2; O'Donnell and Champion in the negative. Okay. Next item. Hayek: Do we need to have any discussion to give staff some direction on...on these parking issues...over the next few weeks? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #5 Page 23 Bailey: I think we can do that at our work session on the 1St? Could we possibly have a work session on this? Wright: Will that be adequate, Bob, if we give some instruction at the work session on the 1 Std Bailey: I don't know the timeline. Miklo: We've got some fairly clear direction if you want to, um, add additional at your next work session that'd be fine. Bailey: Okay. Lombardo: If in the meantime you have questions or things come up and you want to email me, I can coordinate. that and make sure that they get to Bob and they anticipate that. Bailey: Okay. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #7 Page 24 ITEM 7. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC", CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "PARKING REGULATIONS", SECTION 9, ENTITLED "PARKING DURING SNOW EMERGENCIES", TO REQUIRE, UPON DECLARATION OF A SNOW EMERGENCY BY THE CITY MANAGER, ALTERNATE SIDE PARKING UPON CITY STREETS NOT CURRENTLY POSTED FOR SAME DURING THE DECLARED EMERGENCY. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Wright: (several talking) I move 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, and that the second consideration and vote be waived, and that the ordinance be voted on for final passage at this time. Champion: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wright to expedite, seconded by Champion. Um, we'll take a vote on expediting and then we'll have some discussion. Roll call on expediting. Item carries 6-0 to expedite. Karr: You want to put it on the floor. Wright: Move adoption. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Okay. Moved by Wright, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Dieterle: Well, my main concern is answered by the summary here, if I understand it correctly to say that on streets, such as Walnut Street, where parking is normally on one side only, mainly the north side, that there would be alternate parking on those, on a snow emergency, so that people would park on the south side, um, no? Bailey: No, and we have the expert in this ordinance in the audience. Rick is here, and he can walk us through it. Dieterle: Well, before he does that, if you're meaning that on Walnut Street this ordinance isn't going to change anything and that snow three feet high or not, we're all still going to have to park every day on the north side. What are you saying? Bailey: ...Rick explain it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #~ Page 25 Fosse: What will happen on the north side, that's the even side of the street, if I remember right. Dieterle: Right. Fosse: So on the odd days, there will be no parking on the north side, but on.. . Bailey: Rick, could you speak up a little bit more. Fosse: On the south side that's posted no parking, that will remain no parking all of the time. So the posted parking supercedes the snow ordinance. Dieterle: Then there would be no parking on Walnut Street. Bailey: For one day. Fosse: Yes. Bailey: For one day of the snow emergency. Dieterle: And where are we all supposed to go? Hayek: Rick? (laughter) Somewhere else. Fosse: That's certainly one of the challenges of relying on on-street parking, and uh, you may need to find another street. We will have the Chauncey Swan and Court Street parking ramps open, uh, for free parking from 5:00 P.M. until 7:00 A.M. and uh, also we'll allow parking in the Parks' parking lots during those times, as well. Wright: There will be an effort to try to clear the parking lot in neighborhood parks, for folks to move in. Bailey: It is going to be a challenge for those who rely upon on-street parking. We...we acknowledge that. Dieterle: Well, I think that this is really pretty bad for a lot of people who don't live near a place where a park has public parking. Um, the park nearest me does not. And you know Lucas Street is also like my street, where there's only parking on one side. There's never any available parking on Summit Street. There's never any available parking on Kirkwood Avenue, either. The buses do not run, you know, after 6:00 P.M. The shuttle doesn't run on Saturday and Sunday, and so if you're sending me to the Chauncey Swan parking ramp, at this point I guess I'm spry enough to make it down there at 71, but you know, there are some other people who probably are not. And you know what are they then to do with their car? They have This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #7 Page 26 nowhere to go. Why not have on a street like Walnut Street have it made into alternate side parking during a snow emergency? That would be a much smarter thing to do. Because then, you know, we could just park on the south side during the snow emergency. I'd also like to say that last winter the problem was compounded on Walnut Street because the two drains for the block that I live on, uh, were at either end of the street. There isn't much, um, slope and those drains are on the north side. So that eventually, after a couple of snows, everything froze into a block of ice and when we did get a thaw, there was nowhere for the water to go. And that's why in the end the City had to spend a lot of money to come down there in...with endloaders and God only knows what kind of equipment to try to make that street actually drivable. And I was one of the first people to say that the sane thing to do on a street like Walnut Street was to make the parking alternate day parking during a snow emergency, so that people would not only be able to move their car, but that eventually when melting days came along there'd be some place for the water to go. So, I totally oppose this the way it is written because it does nothing for a lot of people in town, unless you want to pass this one and then pass another one that would take care of people who live on streets like mine. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Champion: She's right. Where are all those people on Summit Street going to park? Bailey: Further discussion? Champion: Well, I'd like to pass this, and then revisit this, because we could have a snow. Hayek: I...I, my sense is that, we need to try this. There maybe some wrinkles to iron out, but overall this is a sensible ordinance, and I think it balances the reality of the situation, which is that Iowa City relies heavily on on-street parking, but the fact that, uh, to plow a street our crews have to be able to access all portions of it, and I think overall it makes sense and...and in going forward if we need to tweak it, based on experience, we can do so. O'Donnell: Well, I think we should pass this too, but I think a good...a very good point was brought up on that, and we're going to be going down Walnut Street. I...I guess I'm asking what, if we had alternate parking, it seems to answer a question. Bailey: Well, and I think in our discussion, um, with Rick, and in April what we saw was parking on the street, cars parked on the street does not allow the crews to adequately clear the street to the degree necessary to prevent the kind of build up, ice and snow build up, that we saw last year, and so that's the intent of this, is to get cars completely off the street, as Matt This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #7 Page 27 said, so we can clear curb to curb, and we know that it's going to be a challenge, but it is a snow emergency situation. It's not going to be employed every time it snows necessarily. It's in heavy snows. It's when the situation warrants it, so I think we need to give it a try, do something like we did last year in April. Hopefully the snow will be gone again in April, and review what we've done and...and learn from, I mean, that's how we came up with this ordinance. We learned from our lessons last year. Dieterle: (several talking) Maybe I misunderstood the ordinance regarding streets in which there was parking on only one side, only alternate days. Now...that's being excluded, right? Bailey: Calendar parking is excluded, yes. Dieterle: Right. So what are you going to do about what you just mentioned on those streets? I mean, you still are going to have, you know... Bailey: We're going to, I mean... Dieterle: Why not, in other words, why not make my street a calendar day parking street? Bailey: In past...it will end up a calendar day parking in April, Caroline. Dieterle: Boy, that's good timing, right after the snow's gone! Bailey: I think what you heard us say is that we're going to try this and learn from what we learn, and see how it works. Champion: But this would not be a very complicated thing to change. I mean she makes a really valid point. We have a lot of streets in town that have parking only on one side. Dieterle: Right! Bailey: But this...okay, Caroline, we're not (both talking) we're not going, okay. We're just going to stop the dialog back and forth, okay. If you have another comment, make your comment and then we'll have discussion of the Council. Dieterle: Well, I simply fail to see the difference between omitting the current calendar parking that switches back and forth from this ordinance, and what that'll do for the street crews to omit that, in simply making streets that are now one-side only calendar parking days, you know, too because This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #7 Page 28 that way you would clear my street and it wouldn't be any different, you know, than the other streets that are alternated. Bailey: Okay, thank you. Dieterle: That's it. Correia: I do think there's a complication in streets like Jefferson and Market Street. You really can't park the way the...on the alternate side the way (coughing, unable to hear). Fosse: I was just going to add that most the streets, or many of the streets that are posted no parking on one side are that way for a reason. There's a constraint or something on there, and...and there's good reasons to leave it that way, and...and to go into an alternate side parking mode during a snow emergency could be unsafe in those situations, uh, certainly be confusing, um, now there may be a number of streets out there that have parking on one side only now that are good candidates for alternate street parking, alternate side parking, and then those can be adjusted as time goes on. Bailey: Right. Wright: A permanent change to alternate side parking. Yeah. Fosse: Yep, and one thing we might want to think about in the long-term, uh... Bailey: Caroline, sit down, please. Thank you. Fosse: What some other communities have done is, is where they have the odd- evenparking for the snow ordinance, rather than having calendar parking in their neighborhoods they have odd-even parking so that it's consistent throughout the community when a snow ordinance goes into effect. Just something to think about for next year. Bailey: Okay. This is the same ordinance that we did first consideration (several talking). Okay. Hayek: Let me make a point here. I...our Public Works and Transportation people spent a lot of time coming up with something they thought would be as clear as possible, as understandable and as consistent as possible, and uh, it may not be perfect and we will find that out, but I have great faith in their ability to come up with what...with a sensible way of dealing with this, and we're just going to have to see how this works. I mean, it's the best response we can come up with, right now, to what occurred last year. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #7 Page 29 Wright: Actually do appreciate Rick's comment that many of the streets that have parking on the one side all the time are main or are arterial collector type streets, and to switch those back and forth would be very confusing and probably would constitute a safety hazard (several talking). Champion:. Well, it wouldn't work for like Summit Street, which is a busy street. You would have a disaster. Dieterle: Well, at the very least, I think... Bailey: Caroline, we're not engaging in dialog. I was clear with that. Dieterle: This is another issue. This is another point, that has to do with the, with the side of the street that is chosen, uh, on the, when you have only parking on one side, to have it be the side that doesn't have the drains on it. Bailey: Thank you. Okay, further discussion? Correia: So, is this a place to ask about how we'll start notifying folks...about the ordinance? Fosse: We're working on a...on a packet of information that's going to go out to the public on that, and then...so that'll educate in general to it, and then we're putting together a number of options for the notification of a specific event, where you can sign up to get a text message, uh, get an email, uh, we'll be setting up a phone line where you can call in and get information from a prerecorded message that's going to tell you if the snow ordinance is in effect. So there's a variety of ways we'll get the word out, in addition to the typical media outlets. Correia: And the other thing that, question that had come up is the, um, getting the training, the community service officers or the dispatchers, so that when people might call in, and in the event of a snow emergency, and say there's a snow emergency, this is where I live. What's, you know, how does this effect me? That then they would be able to say, you know, have access to the information, they can quickly say, yes, you live on Jefferson Street. You have to be, you park on the street -you need to be off during this (mumbled) period, and you can go to these places to park -Chauncey Swan. Is that... Fosse: The Police Department has been a part of our...our committee meetings on this and putting things together, and that level of detail certainly will be available on our web site, um, usually in an extreme situation like that, the dispatchers may not have time to...to spend a lot of time talking about This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #~ Page 30 parking options, when people call in, but we'll put together best package we can. And...and parking will be inconvenient. There's no question about that, and that's why it'll be used sparingly. Bailey: Thank you. Further discussion? Roll call. Item carries 6-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #8 Page 31 ITEM 8. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION FOR STATE HOME FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000, FROM THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE FOR INCOME ELIGIBLE FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE GRANT AGREEMENT AND ANY AMENDMENT THERETO. Correia: Move the resolution. Bailey: Moved by Correia. Hayek: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. Discussion? Correia: Good to see this application going to the State, so I appreciate the Housing Authority for putting it together, um, just noting that it would be funds that are available, um, to the entire county, um, our City Home Funds are only for Iowa City households, but this would open up, uh, funding for downpayment assistance throughout the county, (mumbled) identified as a need in our market analysis, which included the entire county, so I appreciate the responsiveness. Bailey: Further discussion? Steve, did you have any comments to make? Rackis: Yeah, just one quick comment that, um, we are asking for administrative, um, funding through the grant so that, uh, the time staff is spending will be paid, uh, in the county, will be paid through that...through that grant, and it'll operate very similar to the existing downpayment assistance grant that we have through the Housing Commission. Bailey: Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? Roll call. Item carries 6-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #9 Page 32 ITEM 9. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF SPEED HUMPS ON FOURTH AVENUE AND A STREET BETWEEN COURT STREET AND THIRD AVENUE. O'Donnell: Move the resolution. Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell. Hayek: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. Discussion? Correia: So, can we...I had asked yesterday for the... Yapp: As requested yesterday, uh, wanted to see the entire traffic calming policy. There were a series of memos, but the policy is contained in this brochure, so I thought that would be the easiest thing to do. Bailey: Thanks. Correia: I had brought up, uh, discussion about this. My concern is that this neighborhood is adjacent to City High, um, so that hasn't changed. Um, and certainly the traffic calming has worked. Cars have slowed down, due to that. Um, I can imagine a situation where we'll have them removed; in short order potentially we'll see increased speeds and then have another request. Um, we did the surveys; we received 50% of the total households in support of removing them. I know we go by percent of supporting that were returned in order to...for you to forward it to us, um, but I guess when I see only eight of 16... Champion: (noise on mic) returned them. Correia: Returned them, but I mean, eight said they wanted them removed. There are 16 households, that's sti1150%, that we haven't heard, well, you know, we've heard from some of them, not all of them, and so...I know that the purpose of the program, um, to be responsive to the neighborhood, um.. . Yapp: In the past when Council's discussed that issue of the response rate, um, the decision had been made to treat it like any election, where you count the votes you receive. But that is... Champion: That's the only way to do it. Yapp: That is a...a Council policy. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #9 Page 33 Champion: But this street is just of particular interest, but...66% wanted them removed. That's a lot. O'Donnell: I agree with everything Amy said on this. But it's our policy. So we have to follow the policy. Correia: Well, but it says, I mean, the policy doesn't require us...I mean, it says the proposal for traffic calming must be support by 60% of those responding to the questionnaire, which it...in order for it to be considered for implementation, and then it goes on to say, no minimum number of responses to the (mumbled) is required, but a low response rate will be taken into account by the City Council. The City Council makes final decisions on the implementation of all traffic calming projects. Krotz: I'm Delores Krotz that lives on the corner of 4th and A, and to my knowledge from living there and seeing the traffic, it has not helped the speeding. The one lady that pushed and pushed to get it through has worked for the City and she's no longer around, and uh, a lot of the neighbors wish to get them out. Uh, the drain, the ice and stuff builds up on the sides. The street department would love to see them go, and the kids just speed over the top of `em to see how fast they can go, and to me it has not helped a bit. In the first place, they should have never been put in in the beginning because there was a deadline on a Friday. You had to have 60% to get them installed. The 60% was not in on Friday. Two more came in on Monday, so the City passed them. Now when taxes are due on the 30th of September, if you paid them the first of October or the second of October, you'd pay a penalty, wouldn't you? So how can the City get by with doing this? When the deadline was on Friday. So they should have never been installed in the beginning. Correia: You're talking about the installation? So you...you don't think it's made a difference and you're not concerned about the.. . Krotz: No it has not! Correia: Okay. Krotz: I live there. I've been there 51 years. And the kids just race to see how fast they can go over the top of `em, and around the corner. It's a hindrance when it comes to cleaning the snow off the streets. When they sweep the streets, the sand and stuff is on this hump, this side of the hump and that side of the hump. They're a pain! If you had to drive over `em every time you left your house, when it doesn't do any good. So I would love to see them removed. And 66% I would say is a good percentage, that wants `em out. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #9 Page 34 Bailey: Thank you. Okay. Wright: (mumbled) got a 66% vote in an election, you've done pretty well. Hayek: I mean, it seems like our ability to reconsider a vote like that, based on low voter turnout, for lack of a better word, is...is loose, but I suspect we upheld these issues or removals, uh, based on that kind of voting rate. in the past, and we just have to be consistent, and if that means our policy is flawed let's look at that. Bailey: Mike's right, and you said it too. It's just, um, it's our policy. This is how we outline it. I understand your concern, Amy, because I understand, I mean, the proximity to the high school. It sounds like there is speeding going on over there, but perhaps we need to look at our policy. Roll call. Item carries 6-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #10 Page 35 ITEM 10. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CHAPTER 28E AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AND THE CITY OF CORALVILLE, IOWA FOR THE PROVISION OF ANIMAL CARE SERVICES. (DEFERRED FROM 11/3) O'Donnell: Move the resolution. Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell. Hayek: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. Um, Michael, you asked this be deferred. Do you have the information you needed? Lombardo: I'm content with just moving forward. If we're going to make any changes to the 28E agreements, they should be in a more comprehensive sense for all users, and it's something we could work towards, uh, down the road. We're not prepared to undo this resolution, or this agreement. Bailey: Okay. Further discussion? Okay. Roll call. Item carries 6-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #11 Page 36 ITEM 11. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND DEVELOPER SOUTHGATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF PEPPERWOOD MALL. Champion: Move the resolution. Bailey: Moved by Champion. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? I see Wendy here. Did you have any comments to make? Ford: I'm Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator for the City, and um, I think you're all pretty aware of why this, uh, this arose. In the TIF agreement with Southgate, uh, for Pepperwood Plaza there was, um, a component to the agreement that said for any exterior building changes, the developer had to come back through and have those changes reviewed by the staff design review committee, and um, a couple of weeks ago, or maybe it was more than a month ago at this point, the um, the developer did so. The staff design review committee could not, um, recommend approval at the time, simply because the documents that were on file for the TIF agreement, um, were not, uh, were not the ones and did not show the same kinds of development that the developer was going forward with here. Um, that lead to a lengthy discussion about how we proceed forward with ensuing exterior changes, and the Council had, uh, wanting to avoid the kind of thing that happened this last time for this particular TIF agreement recommended that future exterior changes be reviewed by the Economic Development Committee. Um, this in light of the potential of say, for example, a national, uh, corporate store brand wanting to move into the area and Southgate not having pre-designed a plan to accommodate who knows what at this point. Bailey: Questions for Wendy? Champion: Thank you, Wendy. Hayek: This wasn't, uh, I'll support this, but...but the way this has been presented to us is not exactly what we talked about, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but is there a particular reason why it's crafted so that ED committee is...is the design review team now? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #11 Page 37 Ford: The Southgate Development Company, uh, told staff that they did not have a plan to go forward with, and because the TIF agreement as it exists now requires that any exterior changes come through the staff design review committee and have to be tied to the plan, uh, that they had submitted, and that there's no plan, makes that impossible. So, in order to fix that having an individual review for just this project through to the Economic Development Committee would be the way to solve this, short of their submitting a plan for the future. Champion: That's fine. Lombardo: Madame Mayor? I think the difference here is that staff would need something to respond to, or standards to hold it up against, and lacking a plan, it would be subjective on their part, uh, potentially of whether they thought it would meet the criteria or not. Whereas, and they don't really have that latitude necessarily, whereas a member or board or committee of City Council do have discretion, if you empower them to have that. Bailey: And I guess I assumed that what we were going to do was create something that would give staff that clarity, to clarify some of the language in here, which seems to be the challenge initially. Um.. . Champion: It just won't work as well. Wright: Yeah, I think that was my assumption as well, but I think we're only talking about this individual TIF but I don't imagine this issue is going to fly up very often. It should work. We don't have that much longer to run on it. Bailey: Well, yeah, I hope that our future TIF agreements are more clearly... Hayek: It'll work. Lombardo: I can assure you it will. Champion: (several talking) It's fine. Hayek: Spent some quality time with Glenn and color swatches and stuff like that. (several talking) Bailey: Okay. Any further discussion? Roll call. Item carries 6-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #13 Page 38 ITEM 13. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS. Applicants MUST reside in Iowa City and be 18 years of age unless specific qualifications are stated. Bailey: I understand we have no applicants. Karr: Madame Mayor, if I could just get you to have a motion on Item 13, c, the Youth Advisory Commission, similar to the last time, if we could defer that indefinitely, pending adoption of the revised bylaws...rather than re- advertise. O'Donnell: Move to (mumbled) Bailey: Okay. Moved by O'Donnell. Correia: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Correia. Discussion? All those in favor say aye. Okay. Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #14 ITEM 14. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS. Page 39 Bailey: Typically we've appointed Council Members to review the Aid to Agencies Human Service funding, and at our work session last night, um, Council Member Wright and Council Member O'Donnell, um, indicated that they would participate in this process. I would entertain a motion to that effect. Correia: Move those appointments. Bailey: Moved by Correia. Champion: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Champion. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #17 ITEM 17. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Bailey: Mike? Wright: I don't have anything. Bailey: Okay. Champion: Happy Thanksgiving next week! O'Donnell: Happy Thanksgiving. Bailey: Okay, Happy Thanksgiving. I will entertain, oh, City Manager. Page 40 This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008. #18 Page 41 ITEM 18. REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF. Lombardo: Um, only to report that we are perhaps 90% through, uh, departmental budget hearings, um, and then the hard work of pulling it all together will...will commence, uh, but we do expect to be on track for mid- December, um, draft to you all, um, other than that nothing to report. Southwest Michigan did receive 10 inches of snow, so thank heavens we're in Iowa! Bailey: Assistant City Manager? Helling: Nothing! Bailey: City Attorney? Dilkes: Nothing. Bailey: City Clerk? Okay, now I will entertain a motion. O'Donnell: (mumbled) Hayek: Second. Bailey: Motion by O'Donnell, seconded by Hayek. All those in favor say aye. Thank you very much. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of November 18, 2008.