HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-20 TranscriptionPage 1
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Let's get started. Zoning items. Karin.
Okay. The first few items are setting public hearings. The first one is
for April 4th and this is a rezoning basically a sensitive areas rezoning
and it's down at the comer of Prentiss and Linn Streets for a multi-
family building. The next item is setting a public hearing for April 4th
for the vacation of a potion of Wolf Avenue. The third item is setting
a public hearing for April 4th for an ordinance amending the sign
ordinance which would allow masonry wall signs in certain zones.
The fourth item is setting a public hearing on amendment to allow
overnight boarding of animals within small animal clinics in the
commercial office zone. And then the next two items I'm going to
have a little bit more discussion of at least to let you know what's
going on here. This is to set a public hearing for April 18th on
rezoning ordinances which are currently before the Planning and
Zoning Commission and these are re-zonings in the Governor and
Lucas area and it is a proposed down-zoning from RM-12 to RMC-12
or as the original application was on Governor Street to RS-8. The
setting of the public hearing at this time which is a little bit different as
I outlined in my memorandum to you what that would do is set a
moratorium on the issuance of any building permits that were in
conflict with what is proposed. The reason for that is so that...I mean
the reason there's even that mechanism in place is so there won't be
remarkable changes in an area in a reaction to a down-zoning action.
That there is enough time before the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the City Council to deliberate without having a...there being a
remarkable change that would change the character of the area even
before the rezoning could be considered. We have done this before
when we did the College Hill rezoning back in the early '80's. We've
done it on the north side a couple of times. So there is some precedent
for this. It ~vill mean a very tight time schedule in terms of the
Planning & Zoning Commission needing to act at their first meeting in
April, but then would progress through the process through you. If the
Council were not to make a decision within the 60 days then the
moratorium is lifted. You continue to go on with your deliberations,
but changes could take place.
I've got, I guess, two questions. I am...can you tell me how long ago
notification went out to property owners in the affected area?
On the rezoning it would have gone out when we first got the
application which would have been at least two weeks before it went
to the Planning and Zoning Commission the first time. So...
About three weeks ago anyway?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Gibson:
Lehman:
Gibson:
Lehman:
Gibson:
Franklin:
Gibson:
Franklin:
Gibson:
Page 2
Yeah. The Commission...Dick you had it this for the first time. Yeah.
However...yeah we did...it may have gotten out even earlier than that
because we got the application and then we needed to do enough
research that we couldn't put it on the next Commission meeting that
we normally would and we send those notices out now as soon as we
get the application in.
So everybody's been notified that we know about.
Everybody that's required by law to be notified.
Okay.
Yes. And we...I mean we always - we take the list from the applicant.
If, for instance, the assessor's records are in error then it's possible
somebody didn't get one.
And there's been adequate time notification for those folks.
I believe that there has been adequate time. I mean certainly with the
reaction we're getting people know what's going on.
Okay.
Dick, did...Dick is raising his hand.
Well there's a little bit of variation by...
Dick you got to talk in the mic.
Oh, I'm sorry.
That's just so we...everybody can hear you, but the recorder can't.
There's a little bit of variation in the people who are opposed to this
rezoning were concerned that they hadn't had adequate time to deal
with it largely because the Staff recommendation disagreed with the
petitioner's request in terms of the rezoning.
Okay.
Staff didn't agree with going so far down as an RS-8 want to hold it to
RNC-12. Yeah.
RNC-12 and so they hadn't had time to deal with it. This is indeed
conflicting because there is, you know, three different options on the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 3
Lehman:
Gibson:
Franklin:
Gibson:
Lehman:
Gibson:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Gibson:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Gibson:
Franklin:
Gibson:
Franklin:
table right now. And they were urging that we not rush to judgment
on this. That's the reason the Commission passed a motion urging you
to approve this - setting this public hearing so that there would be
some time to deal with this in an appropriate manner.
Okay. Now wait a minute. That's my second question. Planning and
Zoning discussed this - I think I read your minutes and chose - and
you deferred.
Which we normally would do because it's a rezoning. We normally
hear that twice.
That's just standard procedure for rezoning. All rezonings are
considered twice.
It was standard procedure. We wouldn't even consider approving this
the first hearing.
But I guess if you felt it was as important as you seem to feel why
wouldn't you maybe hear it only once and go ahead with it.
I don't think we've ever varied from that practice.
Especially when there's controversy. I mean we wouldn't advise it
and I don't know why the Commission would want to do that.
But you did feel strongly that we should set the public hearing.
We do because we don't think there's adequate time to hear this. It
may take more than one hearing on the part of P&Z to really
adequately deal with it.
If that happens then we...
We're outside the 60 days.
That's right. We would be. Yeah.
We don't think it was explained to us that way last Thursday evening.
It would.
But I wouldn't argue with that.
We ran through the timings. Sarah Hollocheck and I ran through the
timing after your meeting...after P&Z's meeting looking at the State
Code and the City Code and that is how it works out that if we set the
public hearing for the 18th/19th, P&Z would have to act on the 6th.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 4
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Pfab:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Gibson:
They would have to act?
Well, to ensure the moratorium...
...has taken effect.
Yes. You were able to make a decision within the confines of the
moratorium.
There'd be no time lapse.
That's right.
And when is the proposed time of the public hearing.
It would be the 18th of April, but by law when you set a public hearing
on a rezoning at the point that the Council sets the public hearing that
allows sets a 60-day moratorium. Now, in most instances there isn't
any debate about this and nobody really cares because you got a
development coming before you. It's not this kind of thing. So this is
a little bit different.
This is standard procedure. A moratorium is in effect for any rezoning
- up, down.
Yes. As soon as you set a public hearing there's a 60-day moratorium
in effect.
Okay.
What is different here is that we're setting the public hearing early
because of the very real potential for some of those properties to
change in this interim. We've already had at least four applications for
change in the status of those properties to try to get them in to a higher
intensity of use prior to the rezoning. And when you're looking at a
down zoning that is a reaction that is, I guess, natural from people who
own properties that have owned them for development.
So now if someone has made an application to develop at the present
density how far do we have to be in the process before the moratorium
stops.
They have to have had a building permit issued already.
Okay.
I think part of this was that we've got a three week gap now because of
the length of March before our next meeting and the fact of' the four
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 5
Vanderhoef:
Dilkes:
Franklin:
Champion:
Gibson:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Dilkes:
Gibson:
O'Donnell:
Franklin:
applications which we were told have been filed we were very
concerned that there be an opportunity to really consider this before
changes occurred. And so I would offer you - the Commission would
probably just soon not do it, but would respond at the next meeting if
necessary to this if that's necessary to get it done before there's any
(can't hear) action occurring.
But there's no option to go more than 60 days.
Ernie?
No. And you cannot set a moratorium again within a year on the same
property.
Well 60 days gives Planning and Zoning an opportunity and the
community enough time to look at it. It would be hurried.
One more meeting.
It gives you 60 days that you don't have right now to have deliberation
without potential change.
Okay.
Ernie can I just.., your question about what does...would a property
owner have had to do before the...when the moratorium kicks in. I
think they have to have the building permit and have made progress
toward construction of the substantial part of the building which I
think we interpret as the foundation or something like that. I mean
there are two...they can't just get the building permit. There has to be
some progress toward construction.
I think there was some concern, however, about the fact that
demolition could occur - at least one of these streets is remarkable
well preserved. I was shocked when I drove down it myself- it's 95%
of the original construction is still there and everybody's concerned
that some of that will be torn down and you get some of the outcomes
that you see on other street - I think it's Governor right next to it
where we're getting some of these big box apartment buildings being
constructed now. That's what their concern is.
Refresh me a little bit on the character. We're going from RM-12
which means you could build according to the square footage of the
lot?
Well, you would have to have in RM~12 1 think it's 3,000 square feet
per unit.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 6
O'Donnell:
Franklin:
O'DonnelI:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Champion:
Franklin:
O'Donnell:
Franklin:
Pfab:
Franklin:
Pfab:
Franklin:
Okay.
So the distinction is in RM-12 you can build multi-family units. And
RS-8 all you can have is single family and duplex.
And RNC- 12.
And RNC-12 is preserves whatever you have right now.
Is that "C" for conservation?
Yes. Yes. And what the RNC does is hold the neighborhood is
spacious. Whatever it is now is what it would be onward. You can
build new single family. You can build new duplexes with sufficient
lot size, but you could not build new multi-family. So it's a
disincentive to put properties together, tear the building down, and
build apartment buildings. However, it allows you to retain whatever
existing multi-family you have as a conforming use - not non-
conforming, but conforming.
Which means they could be replaced.
Which means they could be replaced. That goes for rooming houses
also and for the number of roomers which is a big issue on these two
streets in terms of the properties and how they're used.
But if there's a single family there now zoned RM-12 the potential is
to build a multi-family unit there at a later date.
They would not be able to - no.
I have a question. How many different forms of construction are
involved potentially are being denied? Single family, duplex, what
else?
Multi-family and rooming houses would be the two which you could
not build new if the rezoning action ~vere to be put in place.
As proposed by the...
As proposed either by the applicants of as the Staff has recommended.
When it goes to either RS-8 or RNC-12 you cannot build new multi-
family or rooming houses. In RS-8 any that are existing become non~
conforming that is if they're destroyed they're gone.
Pfab: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 7
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
In RNC-12 existing multi-family and rooming houses are treated as
conforming which means if they are destroyed, even though you can't
build new if you never had it before, you can rebuild those.
Okay. I think the thing that we...the discussion relative to what you
can build and what you can't build and how big they can be and
~vhatever...
Is the essence of the rezoning.
...are going to be questions for the public hearing. The question for us
tomorrow night is are we willing to set a public hearing that will
prohibit any development taking place in this area for 60 days in the
nature of large multi-family units.
Well... okay.
is that not correct?
That's right.
It would not allow...that's a 60-day window. At the hearing...and we
hear the discussion we can vote on the recommendation for P&Z. If
we voted that down obviously construction would continue the way it
always has. If we passed it then it would then...and that's when we
need to talk about the merits of what would be allowed and what
wouldn't. So our question is: are we willing to set a public hearing
that would start a moratorium for 60 days. That's the question we
have tomorrow night.
Okay. I have a question concerning the public hearing could it be held
in somewhere in that neighborhood?
Why would you do that?
You think it would be...
Well people expect public hearings to be in public places and this is a
public place. People are accustomed to coming here.
Okay. Is this more confrontational or is there a place to have a public
hearing where people could feel that they could find a common
ground.
Irvin, based on the meetings that we've had since I've been on the
Council nobody seems very inhibited from talking to the Council.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Pfab:
Champion:
Lehman:
P fab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
Vanderhoefi
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Karr:
Lehman:
Page 8
But it's also...this is more confrontational than some other settings
you can have.
I don't think so.
I don't agree with that.
You don't think so?
No.
Okay...that was my impression that it might be a cause of more
confrontational comments than if you set around in the room and
everybody on the same level.
Well, I hear what you're saying, but something as important as this
really has got to be in a public place where everybody knows the time,
the place.
Alright. Okay. So...but I do not disagree with your point that the
public has to be able to find it, but that could be publicized.
Yeah, but...okay.
Okay.
Alright, Karin.
I think Dee has something.
Is Lucas Street eligible for National Historic Registry as a street?
I don't believe so because I don't believe...
I was told today by someone that it was.
I don't know. I don't know.
Can you find that out for us?
Yeah.
Okay.
Mr. Mayor?
Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Lehman:
Karr:
Lehman:
Karr:
????
Lehman:
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
Marcus Cook:
Lehman:
Karr:
Cook:
Lehman:
Champion:
Karr:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Cook:
Lehman:
Champion:
Cook:
Page 9
Before you go to the next item - I don't mean to curtail the
discussion...
Oh, I'm sorry.
But you do have a gentleman here who needs to be added to the
agenda.
Do we do that right now?
Yes.
Marcus, do you want to go up to the podium.
Excuse me. We got so involved and excited that we forgot you.
But we were trying not to be confrontational.
Right. Here we go.
Someone's house is more important than my restaurant.
I'm not sure about that.
Marcus, would you like to state your name. And Marcus would like to
have an application for a liquor license added late to the agenda.
My name is Marcus Cook. I'm a resident at 610 Iowa Avenue. I own
the restaurant which was formally Athena 320 East Burlington. Due to
some time constraints and things of that nature our Class C license was
delayed so we'd like be added to the agenda if possible.
No problem.
Fine with me.
Everything is in order.
Fine.
That's fine. You're on.
Thank you very much.
Sorry you had to wait.
And good luck.
Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page i0
Lehman:
Cook:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
Champion:
No moratorium on that.
No moratorium. Alright. Thank you.
Okay Karin.
Okay. Item g is a public hearing on an ordinance conditionally
changing - and Ernie you need to go away for this.
Are you asking me to leave?
Yeah. I had to...
Conflict of interest.
Item g Oaknoll the rezoning from RS-8 to RM-12. If you remember
this all started a long time ago in a land far, far away. This was
something that we did an ordinance amendments so that the parking
lot near Oaknoll could remain as a parking lot and you directed the
Staff to come up with some way that this could occur without rezoning
the property to RM-44. What was adopted was an ordinance
amendment that allowed parking to be in a different zone for multi-
family uses - we'll just narrow it to that category - if the parking is in
a multi-family zone so that you could have RM-44 use with parking in
RM-20 or RM-12. You could not have parking for an RM-12 use in a
RS zone - a single family. Okay? So the next step in all of this after
we adopted the ordinance amendment was to go to actually rezoning
the property that the parking lot is on. The RM-12 zone is the lowest
multi-family zoning category that we have and that is why we put that
one forward. This has gone through the Planning & Zoning
Commission. They have recommended approval of this for the one lot
for the parking lot. It is a conditional zoning. We still need the
signature on the CZA - the conditional zoning agreement. We don't
have it yet. Okay. If we do not have that by tomorrow then what ~ve'll
need to do is to continue the public hearing. And that will just
take...continue this on. The conditional zoning agreement speaks to
approval of any potential development on the site if that were ever to
happen and requires that a site plan go through the City that it cannot
happen just by right with the RM-12 zone - that it has to be approved
that it's compatible with the neighborhood in terms of height and scale
and design. So after this stage of it happens that the property get
zoned RM-12. The next step that Oaknoll will have to take in the
circuitous route is to get a special exception from the Board of
Adjustment for the parking lot and then it will be done - maybe.
Thanks for a lot of work. We appreciate it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 11
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
O'Donnell:
Franklin:
Robert Downer:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Downer:
Franklin:
Downer:
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
You're welcome. Yeah, Emie?
So we're still only doing the parking lot?
The last request is RM-44.
Bob Downer is shaking his head no. What? .82 acres of property.
The...
I didn't hear that.
Oh, I'm sorry it's all four lots.
Yes. This extends...
Close your ears, Ernie.
.... from the parking lot on the north to Benton Street on the south.
There are three single family residences there. Two of which are
owned by Oaknoll. A third of which is in the process of being
acquired by Oaknoll. There is a written contract for purchase, but it
hasn't closed yet. And then the parking lot. So all four properties that
are on the west side of Benton Court are included in this application
and are part of what the Planning & Zoning Commission acted upon.
The application was originally only for the parking lot, but was then
broadened to cover all of these properties.
Okay. The next item is an amendment to the sign ordinance to allow
wide-base freestanding signs in a number of the commercial zones -
CH-l, I think, CC-2 and CI-1. A wide-base sign is basically a
freestanding sign that has material clad around the outside of it. These
you see most frequently... I mean obviously this is for the Honda
dealership. This is what precipitated the whole request. But what this
ordinance amendment will allow is these to be used by any business.
So it's opening up the sign ordinance a little bit in terms of having
another type of sign that can be put up - this wide-base clad that is
basically a freestanding sign with this cladding around it. The height
limitation on the freestanding sign has been 25 feet for a number of
years. That is not changing with this proposal. Just so it's all out there
the Chezik-Sayer Dealership wants 9 more inches than 25 feet.
How is the 25 foot set? What was the rational?
Well, that was set years ago when the first sign ordinance was done
and, I believe that it is related to the distance or the height that you
need to see something from a certain distance going at a certain mile-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 12
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Vanderhoefi
Franklin:
Vanderhoefi
Franklin:
O'Dormell:
per-hour. It was an effort to try to control the height of signs and still
allow enough signage that was visible along highways.
Karin?
Yes.
If you take - and I'm talking about this particular sign on this
particular location - if you move that sign 200 feet to the west - it's
still on his property and you erect a 25-foot sign it will be at least 15
feet taller than this sign would be at the position that it is on the lot.
Now my understanding that the restriction on the height...
Because there's topographical changes on the lot.
Obviously. What...my understanding is that our regulating the height
of signs is obviously deals with appearance. We don't want signs
sticking up all over the place and we don't want them a mile high and
whatever. If our concern is the aesthetic value ora sign than a 25-foot,
9-inch sign located where they want to put this sign is far less
obtrusive than a legal sign would be 200 feet to the west and that one
would be legal.
It's ali relative. It's all relative to the ground and you've got to have
someplace from which you measure. So I don't...
My question then is I went to the Code book and looked at it and I
couldn't see anything that said anything about an appeals process. Is
there such a thing?
There is always...well there's always and appeal of interpretation.
You can ask for a variance to the sign regulations, but if you pursue a
variance the only way you're going to get it is if you show that you
can make no reasonable use of the property without the variance.
Basically the dealership would have to say they could not make a
reasonable use of this property unless they have a 25-foot, 9-inch sign
versus a 25-foot sign.
That doesn't...
Pizza Hut years and years ago tried to get a sign variance for a roof
sign on Keokuk Street because their argument was they could not
make a reasonable use of that property without a roof sign...without a
roof sign a sign that said 'Pizza Hut' on top of the roof. They were
denied the business and I think they've been in business for 20 years.
The sign is 25-feet and 9 and it should be 25.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Franklin:
Pfab:
O'Donnell:
Franklin:
O'Donnell:
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
O'Donnell:
Franklin:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Pfab:
Vanderhoefi
Pfab:
Franklin:
Page 13
That's right.
This is a proposed sign is that fight?
This is a franchise sign is that right?
Yes. That's my understanding is that this is a sign that they get from
their corporate.
Can we cannot get in and change this from 25 feet then to 26 feet.
You could and then when the next company comes along that builds a
26-feet, 5-inches then you'll need to go to 27. The point I'm making is
that there's always a limit that you're going to set that somebody is
going to go beyond that limit and so you try to come to some
conclusion as to what's reasonable. If you want to change it to 26 feet
you can change it to 26 feet. I think you should send it back to
Planning and Zoning.
Karin? I see no point in changing something that has been historically
used at the 25-feet.
Well then you ought to put a tower (can't hear).
I mean the big...
Are we really looking at the right issue here? Have we ever...are there
other signs...what did you call this...
The plat.
The wide-base signs is xvhat they're called.
Is that something...
Free-standing.
Is that something that's used extensively?
This is a new...relatively new concept in signs. You see them a lot
along the interstate as you go into Chicago for both the office research
parks and car dealerships use them a lot. So this sign with the
cladding on it...this width here which means that you've got a sign
that has greater mass than the signage that we pernfit now is a step to
allow a different type of signage than we have in Iowa City right now.
So you're right, Irvin, that the issue here with this amendment in a
general way is the allowance of these...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 14
Pfab:
Franklin:
Champion:
Pfab:
Franklin:
Pfab:
Franklin:
Pfab:
Franklin:
Pfab:
O'Donnell:
Franklin:
Champion:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Wide-spaced black out space.
Yeah.
Right.
So in other words it makes the sign look more powerful.
Yeah.
That's the point. It also does something else. It restricts visibility.
Well the provisions that are included in...
I don't know if that means anything though.
The provisions in the code require that the sign cannot restrict...there's
the comer requirements that you can't have it within a certain
dimension of the comer of two streets because of the visibility issue.
There's also a provision that the City Engineer needs to look at it in
terms of whether the sign creates any visibility issues. And there's
certain setback requirements for these wide-base signs. For exactly
that reason. So that you're not creating obstructions such that
people...that there's traffic view obstructions.
My point is this is a smoking screen. Maybe it's the design we should
be watching instead of the 9 inches. Maybe the 9 inches doesn't mean
a thing.
But what happens if you build a 9 inch square with a bottom on the
side?
As long as you establish a grade that is going to bring that sign 9
inches down you can do that because the way we measure signs is
from the ground, the grade up to the top. So you can sink the sign
down. I understand their sign will not be under warranty if they sink it
down, you can create the berm around the edge if you.., for these
variabilities - whether it's 9 inches or 3 inches or whatever.
But I do see a problem (can't hear) see the next person come in with a
sign that needs another 6 inches taller and then another 6 inches taller.
So, you know, I just can't...
What part of no don't they understand?
I don't know, but this is something we'll discuss it tomorrow night. I
have a real problem with this myselfi
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 15
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
Kanner:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Well I have a problem if you take the 25-foot 9-inch sign and build a
9-inch berm on the bottom and then you're legal.
i know. They sign is still the same height.
That's right.
Okay.
Ernie, what's the problem you're having with the height or with the
solidness.
Well and it's probably philosophical, but to me the restrictions on
signs are aesthetic restrictions whether it be the height or the size or
the width or the neon or the blinking or whatever they're all designed
to make the community aesthetically more pleasing. On that same
piece of property you could have a sign that extends into the air 10 or
15 feet taller than this one does that's absolutely legal.
But not from grade.
...because the topography changes. Or you can build a little mole of
dirt around the bottom of the sign - the sign is exactly the same height
- and it's legal. That to me is smoke and mirrors.
Well it's like if you put what is it the Bible says about a something...
Church and state, church and state.
Alright if you put a sign that two or three inches from your eye like a
card has as much visibility as something, the farther away you go the
bigger it's got to be. So they're bringing it in close and still they want
to make it bigger.
They're not bringing it in close. It's the same distance from the road it
would be 200 feet up the street. It's right along the street.
I thought you said you could put 200 feet or whatever all the way up.
Well we'll talk about it tomorrow night. Okay.
I didn't want you to get too sleepy.
I'm not.
We've got then second consideration on the Lewis driveway issue -
the CZA related to that. Pass and adopt on the rezoning from CN1 to
C01 on First Avenue. And then the last item the resolution on the final
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 16
plat for Windsor Ridge River we have a request to defer that to April
4th SO that all the papers can get signed.
Lehman: Thank you, Karin.
Franklin: You're welcome.
O'Donnell: Thank you.
Lehman: Agenda items.
Atkins: Emie, one item under the agenda items Maggie is here if you have any
questions about Public Housing Authority's five-year plans.
Lehman: Oh, that's right. That's on...
Atkins: She'll answer questions for you and get out.
Lehman: That's on the agenda for tomorrow night Steve?
Atkins: Yes
Lehman: And that's their five-year plan. Is there any questions about that that
Maggie can clear up for us?
Wilbum: Just a quick question.
Lehman: Yes.
Atkins: She's on her way to the microphone.
Wilburn: Maggie I'm just curious what - I'll look this way so that you can...-
what...I understand that, you know, you're required to have this five-
year plan (can't hear) by the Feds, what efforts have you made to let
local groups that may have a concern about housing be aware of this.
I'm assuming an ad was placed, but was there any direct
correspondence with any group that may have any concerns about it?
Maggie Grosvenor: We did not go out to any specific group, but we did present to the
Health Commission on January 19th. It's been in a six-week public
heating process. It was published at that time when we set the public
heating date.
Wilbum: And is it every year that we'll have to make some type...you'll have to
make some kind of report back to HUD?
Grosvenor: I think so. This is brand new so it's the first time through this process.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Wilbum:
Grosvenor:
Wilburn:
Lehman:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
Wilburn:
Lehman:
Champion:
O'Donnell:
Wilburn:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
Wilbum:
Lehman:
Vanderhoef:
Lehman:
Wilburn:
Page 17
I guess maybe just at some point in the future as you, you know, get
this out I think in the future I know Parks and Rec whenever a group
may have a concern about some interest that Terry would always give
them a you know by the way this is coming up - this is coming up for
· a hearing. So maybe for next year just to consider...you know who
those groups are that are effected -just an e-mail or a phone call.
That's a good idea.
Yep. That's it.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Maggie. Other agenda items? Council Appointments.
Public Art Advisory Committee we have, if I'm not mistaken, one
application.
We have two.
Two.
In the packet and another one that we received tonight.
I would like to nominate Steven Perkins.
I'll second it.
That's the gentleman who applied for...
Right and he has a lot of knowledge about the history of art. He's an
artist. I think both people are (can't hear).
Alright.
And I was (can't hear) counting on either one.
Yeah. ! think we had that discussion last time that they both were
(can't hear).
Do we have consensus on Mr. Perkins?
That's fine with me.
Okay. Okay.
Thank you for moving this item up.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 18
Champion:
Lehman:
Wilbum:
Lehman:
Champion:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Champion:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
I knew it was a good idea too.
Thank Marian. I would have forgot.
Okay.
Okay the Peninsula project. This is exciting.
it is.
I am so pleased.
We're ready to go if you guys are ready.
We're ready.
The selection panel is recommending the Terry Stamper and
Associated team. I've outlined in the memorandum to you some of the
reasons for that and you have had an opportunity I hope to look at the
two submittals and the material that we got from both of the teams. I
guess what I would just stress is that we felt that the Stamper team
adhered to the principals of the Peninsula concept more strongly than
the other team. And so that's overall the reason why we're really
supportive of that particular team and I could go into the details of that
if you want.
I thought (can't hear) looking through their booklet just kind of gave
you kind of overwhelming feeling that they really had in mind what
we had in mind and it probably was a pretty easy choice.
I spoke to Dover Cole the day you interviewed those folks. I think I
was coming in as you were finishing up and my impression from him
~vas he was very pleased with both applicants. But obviously you
folks have talked about it. If I'm reading this correctly my biggest
concern is that the project move forward.
Yes.
I think it's a great concept. I think it was endorsed with some
enthusiasm by the Council and I trust with the time passing hasn't
lessened that enthusiasm. One of the things that makes me
enthusiastic is that they're going to put in the infrastructure. Is that
what I read?
Yes.
So that the City won't be...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 19
Franklin:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Champion:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Pfab:
Franklin:
Pfab:
Yes. That was a distinguishing factor of the two different teams that
the Stamper team very clearly had every intention of being responsible
for all of the infrastructure on the peninsula.
Huge item. Huge item.
I'd say so.
Well you guys tell us again who you're committee was.
It was myself, JeffDavidson, Bob Nickelo, Senior Planner, Steven
Nasby who's the Community Development Coordinator, Gretchen
Smuck from the Housing Community Development Commission and
Lee Suppel from Planning and Zoning Commission.
And this was unanimous?
Yes, it was unanimous. No question.
Any questions?
I just have one question. What efforts are going to be used to keep
affordable housing within this development?
That's addressed...
Over...
Time's up.
There's a couple of ways. One is working with the local community
housing development organization - with what we call a COHDO -
Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship is one. Also working with the
Housing Authority - affordable dream home program. And also in
just how it is built and designed - and that addresses a number of
different levels of affordability, but having that mix of units, different
types of units within the project is one way which you attain that
affordability in the context of the market of the day.
Right and in other words going forward.
Yes.
And I understand is there a way that some organization can own the
land and lease...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 20
Franklin:
Pfab:
Franklin:
Pfab:
Franklin:
P fab:
Franklin:
Pfab:
Karmer:
Franklin:
Kanner:
Franklin:
Yes. That's called a land trust where the organization can own the
land or have a silent second mortgage on the land and the people who
buy the dwelling just buy the dwelling.
And is there some...
You can also put into certain resale provisions.
Right. In other words that it would only go through...so you keep the
original concept of mixed housing down through the years.
That's right. It doesn't keep it at today's price.
No, no. I'm just...
Okay.
Okay.
Karin? Just so I have this straight. So we're going to be approving
that we want to go ahead with this group.
With this team.
And then they'll come back after some public forums and so forth and
we'll have an agreement that we'll sign with them that will spell out
some of these things when we sell the land.
Okay. There's two things that will happen. One is that we will have a
development agreement with them. That is something that we will
negotiate with them and it will be approved by the City Council. The
other part of it is through the normal approval processes that we have
with Planning and Zoning that there will be development plans
approved on each of the phases. So the next thing that we're going to
work out with them is exactly what the phasing will be - what phase
one is going to be, whether we go through the approval of a plat first
before we do the development agreement and in some instances what
you do is a concept plan for that first phase and then you enter into
your development agreement. And that's something we're going to
have to work out over the next month. But yes there's other steps in
this in which the development agreement which is going to set forth
the phasing of it, the involvement of the City over time, exactly when
the land is going to purchased and for how much and how that goes as
time goes on. And the way I see this is that it would be a phased
acquisition over time with the possibility of the City being a
continuing partner until this is built out and appreciating some of the
advantages of the success of this as we sell off additional parts of the
ground.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Lehman:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Pfab:
Franklin:
Pfab:
Champion:
Franklin:
Lehman:
Champion:
Page 21
But the next step is a contract.
That's right.
Okay.
But I think as Steve might have been alluding to is my thoughts too is
at what time or at what point do we lose complete control over what
they do.
At this point what I envision is that will be at the end when all the
phases will be done.
Except that...
In other words if they come up with a development plan that just
doesn't...won't fly as far as we're concerned as Council is concerned
we have veto power?
Uh-huh.
But don't we...
This has to be understood that this is in the context of our whole
proposal - the vision that we had for that area. It would not be
reasonable to expect that the Council could just deny something.
No, but in other words it's flexible if they went off the deep end and
we decided after thinking about this we could make about...it moves
our agenda - whatever it may be. Or maybe have a new agenda. So
this is what we'd like to do because we hear in Czechoslovakia they're
building caves let's say.
You would have to make a deliberate decision to deviate from the
concept that we've put forward as to what we're trying to do here. I
mean that ~vould be something that would be, I think, a very public
decision that you would be making.
And we would be able.., if they.., if the developer decided to go down
a different road than what our reason is, is there a way to stop it.
Well sure.
Yes. Yes.
Well you have a contract.
A contract.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 22
O'Donnell:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Vanderhoefi
Franklin:
Vanderhoefi
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Lehman:
Champion:
Vanderhoef:
Lehman:
Franklin:
Letunan:
Atkins:
We worked on this for 26 years.
26 ½.
Okay Karin I think you got to go. I'm sorry, go ahead.
You say that you're going to be negotiating to have this an ongoing
sale of land rather than...
All of the proposals that came to us were for a phased development
and this would be something that would be coming back to you for
your approval. What it does is that it enables the developer to have
some of the risk covered of moving forward with this. It keeps the
City in it in terms of having control as long as we own parts of the
land. I think probably a little bit more so than if we were just to sell it
outright. If the Council's decision is that rather than doing - and I'm
talking very vaguely because we haven't put this together yet - but if
you don't like the phased proposal and you just want to sell it outright
with covenants then that will be a decision at a point in time in a
couple months from now.
What concerned me was what I thought I was reading in the proposal
was that the value of the land would not be appreciating as we move
along in this process and that they are looking at an upper limit of 1.3.
I want to continue to have discussions with them about that.
Thank you. i would too.
Yeah. Good point.
If this is successful it will...
We're taking risk along with them as long as we pay in the partnership
we have risk here as well as they do and I'm okay with certain levels
of risk for all of us. However, then if there are benefits to be reaped I
think the risk takers all share in that.
Okay.
Okay?
Thank you. Senior Center/Tower Place access. Steven, do you want
to address this?
I'll take that one. Joe's not here yet, but we can still proceed with it.
Sort of the bottom line folks is I need some direction from you. As
you all know particularly the senior members of the Council we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 23
Champion:
Atkins:
Champion:
Atkins:
O'Donnell:
Atkins:
negotiated an agreement HUD, Ecumenical Towers and the City with
respect to providing an entrance way into Ecumenical Towers
satisfying their parking needs when we undertook construction of the
Tower Place and parking. Since that time I've sort of received more
informal requests about the construction of additional doorways -
either from the ramp or from Ecumenical Towers or the Senior Center.
They seem to be for a variety of reasons depending on who you talk to.
I think some folks feel we can cut another doorway from the Senior
Center directly onto the alley and then a doorway into the parking
ramp that will be able to avoid the construction of the skywalk. Others
tell me and I'm serious there's a half a dozen folks who've
approached me off and on about this idea. I don't want us to spend
any money on designing doorways, changing entrances, precluding
you from doing things that you might want to do in the future. We
have not given a definitive answer yet on the skywalk. Bottom line is
I'm not sure where to go with this issue. I think your Senior
Commission has made a policy recommendation that they prefer the
skywalk. Now would they be opposed to a door from the Center into
the parking ramp? I can't speak for them, but I can't see why they
would.
Are you talking about a door.., you would come out at ground level in
the parking ramp...
Yes.
...and you would enter the Senior Center at ground level?
Yes. It would allow the seniors and staff going out the front door and
down the alley to go straight inside. But we also have an obligation to
protect the privacy of the Ecumenical Towers. Eleanor can speak to
that because she represented us during negotiations. They clearly
wanted their own private entrance. There are folks who wanted
something other than that.
Do we also have a safety issue that (can't hear)?
Well I think there's going to have a safety issue, Mike, if you have an
elderly person peeking their head out the door into the alley. There's
always going to be a risk for anyone. I think another concern that I
would have if you cut a doorway into the ramp is that is going to
encourage folks that shop at Gabe's to come out that door, down the
alley, into Gabe's. Now if they park there they have to go out. And
they sort of avoid the Senior Center Ecumenical Towers. I mean
there's no right or wrong answer with this. We're going to have to
spend some money with construction and design if we wish to proceed
with some other option.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 24
Champion:
I don't think the safety is a big issue Mike. If they're coming out of
the ramp because if they're driving I hope they could walk across...
O'Donnell:
Well you drive to the ramp, but when you step out into the alley from
the ramp there's cars coming both ways and I guess it's a sight
problem. As soon as you stand out...as soon as you step out the door
the cars is here. That's what I would say.
Atkins:
I just need to have some idea as to...
Lehman:
Well Steve what's involved in cutting...or I shouldn't say cutting
because I don't think the project is that far along...how big of...what
are we talking about as far as...totally forget the Senior Center and
Ecumenical Towers just having an opening...
(End of Tape #00-35, Beginning of Tape 00-39)
Lehman:
Well I can't imagine there being design work in putting a door in.
Atkins:
Well you got to poke a hole in the wall.
Lehman:
Unless the wall is not there yet.
Atkins:
No, the wall is on its way up.
Dilkes:
Ernie, I just want to bring to your attention on the Ecumenical issue
there is a letter that was delivered to me today from Mark Hammer
who represents Ecumenical Towers (can't hear) a couple things. He
received a call from an individual Council member that he was not
comfortable returning. He said that he would be more than willing to
talk to me if Council has directed me to do that. Secondly, he
confirms that we do have an agreement and that Ecumenical and HUD
don't really care what we do to the ramp as long as we don't disturb
their space.
Pfab:
A question - ifyou put a door...ifthis dooris putinto (can't hear)
space?
Lehman: No.
Dilkes:
If it doesn't... I haven't looked into the engineering issues, but if it
doesn't go into their lobby if nobody else is in their lobby except them
- if this is a completely separate entrance then that's not a problem.
Pfab:
Okay and Steve you're saying that the basically that the wall is being
constructed or is constructed.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Atkins:
Pfab:
Atkins:
Pfab:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Atkins:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
Pfab:
Page 25
It will be. If we're going to do...if you want another entrance we're
going to have to do it pretty soon because that's wall is going to start
going up here shortly.
Okay, but as this minute it's not?
No. Right now we're okay.
Okay.
But it still has to be designed.
If there is a door - and I assume this is a diagram of the parking lot - if
there's a door onto that alley it would appear to me that it would
service only a part of one level of the parking ramp.
They'd have to come down.
Because you got the Cottage sitting in the first what 40 feet...30 feet
and this...
Ernie...
Is that right? I mean the door would be ground level?
Ernie ifI could speak...what I'm trying to understand is why. I mean
we've made an agreement. If you think another doorway is important,
then we'll design another doorway into it. The original agreement
wasn't there. There are going to be folks that are going to say that if
this doorway is built does that preclude the skywalk. Well...
Obviously not.
Well you folks have to...you know you're not dealt with that issue yet.
And I don't want anybody to think that we're building this to do away
with something else. I just want to be very upfront about building
more doorways and what it means to skywalk.
I don't want to pay more money into another entrance. That money
could be applied to the skywalk I mean it just seems like a waste of
dollars.
I don't...what does the doorway do for us?
Nothing.
Well I'll tell you what I'm told is that it allows people who want to get
from the unsecured part of the ramp to the Ecumenical Towers.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 26
Lehman:
Pfab:
manner:
Pfab:
Karmer:
Pfab:
O'Donnell:
Kanner:
O'Donnell:
Dilkes:
Atkins:
Champion:
Dilkes:
Without going out the front door.
Yeah without going out and around.
Senior Center.
No, also to the Ecumenical Towers.
Oh, then it's...
In other words suppose that person is administrating to some citizen in
that Ecumenical Towers and they provide some sort of service - let's
say they're watering the plants or something. Okay to get from
somewhere on the ramp they'd have to go out the door back and then
come in from there. That is as far as I understand and I don't mean it -
I'm not for or against it I'm just saying that's what I understand.
I still think having somebody step out into that alley - you know a
traveled alley is not a good idea.
Well Mike, actually that's going to be happening already with the
Ecumenical Towers people their door goes right into the alleyway.
That alleyway is not a hot bed of activity. People are...
Well we're putting a fairly decent sized parking ramp there. There's a
substantial amount of traffic before. (Can't hear) speculation of how
much traffic is going to be in that alley.
One thing that is, I think, if I could j ust...as I understand it the
Ecumenical exit from the ramp is not far from the entrance to
Ecumenical. It is not clear to me if we would have the same situation
with the Senior Center. Is it possible to put an entryway into the
Senior Center at that location where you would exit out of the ramp? I
don't...
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know. I don't think we should assume that that's the case
because that's a significant difference ify0u have an exit for the
Senior Center that they exit out and then they walk up the ramp that's
different then exiting out and directly or pretty much directly across.
And ifI could just make one more point. The negotiations with
Ecumenical we talked extensively about where their visitors would
park, where they would park, I mean, that just consumed hours of
negotiation and I think at least what I understand from Mr. Hammer is
that they are satisfied with the situation that they negotiated both from
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 27
Lehman:
Atkins:
Dilkes:
Joe Fowler:
Lehman:
Fowler:
Lehman:
Fowler:
Lehman:
Fowler:
Lehman:
Fowler:
Lehman:
the perspective from their residents as well as their visitors and their
service providers.
Joe could you please speak to (can't hear). Do you know what we're
talking about because we don't either. We're talking about the
possibility or the advisability of adding a door to the alley side of the
Iowa Avenue parking facility otherwise kno~vn as Tower Place
parking tat would be across the alley from the Senior Center and
Ecumenical Towers and what if any benefit that would be.
This is new Joe.
You can come up. You can come up here Joe.
I thought we were 8:00. Sorry.
It isn't very often we're early.
Okay.
So don't use up all the extra time okay?
Okay. About two weeks ago we were given a sketch by Newman
Monson of a possible door that could be put in, in the alley way from
the Iowa Avenue Parking Ramp into the alley on the south side of the
ramp, north side of the Senior Center. And probably the easiest way
would be to hand out this sketch. I could give you the original.
Now you got to talk while we're looking at it.
Do you want the original sketch too?
No I don't think so. It says alley on one side. I got that.
Okay. Originally the end of that walkway was a solid wall. The first
plans that we were given by...or the only plans that we were given by
Newman Monson showed a mixture of people coming through the
walkway of Ecumenical people which was not a violation but was not
the agreement that we had reached with Ecumenical. Ecumenical
wanted a separate entrance. This would be a possible walkway that
would go through that would put people into the alley way. What it
would do is it would save people approximately 75 feet of walking
outside and I'm guessing that 75 feet on the block being 300 feet long
and so halfway to the entrance down Linn Street would be 75 feet.
How much does it cost?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Fowler:
Lehman:
Fowler:
Lehman:
Fowler:
Lehman:
Fowler:
Lehman:
Fowler:
Lehman:
Fowler:
Lehman:
Fowler:
Lehman:
Fowler:
Lehman:
Fowler:
Pfab:
Fowler:
Kanner:
Fowler:
Page 28
We don't know. They didn't design it in. We would have to pay
Newman Monson design fees to go back and design it.
Is that wall built now?
Not yet. It's a decision that would have to be made almost
immediately.
Okay. Let me ask you this. If we put the door in, does that door...
It's a walkway, it's not a door.
Did that...?
I mean we could put a door in that...
That accesses one portion of one level of the ramp. Is that correct?
Yes.
It does not go to a stairwell which you could come down the stairs.
No, you would go in this walkway and then you would have to walk
next to all the traffic that comes into the ramp because all the traffic
coming into the ramp goes right inside of this walkway.
You're right next to the Cottage bakery their wall.
It would be behind the Cottage bakery and between all the cars coming
in.
And it accesses only a portion of that level of parking would be of any
good for this door?
Yes.
So, you couldn't use it from any other level.
You would have to go from there to the elevator.
Yeah but could to...by using the elevator can you get to any other
place on the ramp?
Yeah.
This walkway then is to the east of the Ecumenical Towers' elevator
and doorway. Correct?
Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Kanner:
Fowler:
Atkins:
Fowler:
Karmer:
Atkins:
Wilburn:
Fowler:
Wilbum:
Fowler:
Wilbum:
Lehman:
Fowler:
Wilburn:
Pfab:
Fowler:
O'Donnell:
Fowler:
O'Donnell:
Pfab:
Page 29
So it's just about, you know, like a 10 feet wide opening.
Oh, I don't think it's 10 feet. I think you're...
To the west of that...
It'd be east.
The west is the Cottage.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm over in the Ecumenical. I'm sorry. You're right.
How far would it be (can't hear) elevators?
Probably more than 75 feet, you'd have to walk. I mean it's probably
75 feet I'm guessing from the alley to the elevator. You would go
in...you would have to walk a little bit east in the alley. You would go
in the door, then you'd go around a curve walkway and then into the
elevator. The walking distance might be a little bit further this way.
And the curved walkway that would be where cars would be?
It would be fight next to where the cars come through.
Okay.
So in order to redesign this then you either have people walking where
cars are driving or you put in a walking area in the parking ramp and
lose whatever spaces that you would have had if you didn't have the
~valkway.
You wouldn't lose any spaces I don't believe with this Ernie. I think it
would be a walkway right next to the driving lane.
Would cars be coming around... ?
Would you lose maneuvering space?
I don't believe.
It depends on...
I mean I haven't seen any plans that go past this point, but I don't
believe that it would. It would be next to the transformers.
I can't see this.
Did somebody...there was a comment made here that there was a lot
of discussion between the people that were designing the ramp, the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Champion:
Pfab:
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
Champion:
Vanderhoef:
Champion:
Pfab:
Vanderhoef:
Lehman:
Vanderhoef:
Champion:
Vanderhoef:
Champion:
Atkins:
Champion:
Atkins:
Fowler:
Page 30
people in Ecumenical Towers and about how they were going to exit
and entrance the ramp plus their (can't hear) and that was ali decided.
Right.
I have no interest in pursuing it any further.
I don't either.
I think we got a question...or a resolution that we're not willing to
pursue it any further. Is that what I hear?
Well I don't think it's going to be helpful.
The only thing that I see that could be helpful but doesn't mean cutting
new doors and stuff is to change the ramp itself that goes into the
Senior Center.
That's just another...
No.
Which could only go clear out from the sidewalk.
And that's another issue. So...
And get up that way.
Change the direction of it you mean.
Change the direction of the ramp and run it all the way from the
sidewalk up the side of the Senior Center.
And I think what Steve brought up is that other people will be using
this doorway too. It just wouldn't be people in the Senior Center.
I'm assuming anybody coming out of the parking ramp can use that
door~vay.
Right.
Yeah.
Yes. One of the problems that I foresee is that you go in, you've got
your transformers sitting there, it says future generator. More than
likely there will be an emergency generator right inside this door.
Safety wise it's not an open area that people can walk into and not
have things around them. I guess that's a concern of mine.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 31
Champion:
Kanner:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
Wilburn:
Champion:
Kanner:
Champion:
Fowler:
Champion:
P fab:
Champion:
Dilkes:
Pfab:
Dilkes:
O'Donnell:
Pfab:
Exactly.
Well, Cormie, what happens if enough money is not raised for the
skywalk?
I don't think this is a substitute for the skywalk.
Well, but if...
I think people would favor walking outside and walking on the
sidewalk and they wouldn't need to use this particular idea.
That's what it sets up...
They have them walking between transformers where they're going to
be out of sight. I mean I think it's...
Well it's going to be a ramp that's ADA accessible so there's it's
going to be perfectly safe to walk through this area. Any time you
have a ramp that's ADA accessible it has to have a certain width that
makes it quite comfortable for people...
You going to have...am I right that you're going to have limited sight
of this walking path?
Right.
You're going to have limited sight. It's not talking about ADA
accessible. It's going to be limited sight and it's not going to be open.
So you could be walking down there and somebody could mug you
and nobody's going to see it happen.
I have another concern here and that looks like we open up a contract
and we're subject to the whims of the people who we are asking to
make changes here.
The architect?
No...
No, the architect and the bids.
No, no.
(Can't hear) discussions yet. It's just whether we want to pursue this
or not.
It can easily add a lot more money.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Lehman:
Pfab:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
Lehman:
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
O'Donnell:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Champion:
O'Donnell:
Vanderhoef:
Lehman:
Atkins:
O'Donnell:
Brad Neumann:
Page 32
Well and I don't even know if that's the issue. I just don't sense that
there are four people who want to pursue this.
It's another...it's another way...
I'd rather use the money for the ramp, skywalk.
Well whether or not you do...I don't think this is an either/or...
No.
...because the parking facility will service the Senior Center very well
with or without a ramp.
Much better than they've ever been served.
Than it has been the last few years.
(Can't hear) much better with the ramp.
Well let's not go there.
If we're going to start making concessions and sending people out into
the alleyway let's put up a rope swing.
We haven't done that.
Okay.
Let's do bungee jumping.
Yeah. Alright. Now folks this is the end of it. Is that okay.
Yeah thanks.
We are done.
Done.
Done. Caput. Thank you, Joe. You have taken one minute of your
time. Recycling changes.
Brad.
Mr. Solid waste guy.
Just wanted to take a few minutes to go over some of the curbside
recycling changes coming up. April 3rd we're going to start a new
program and there's...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 33
Atkins:
Newmann:
Atkins:
Neumann:
Lehman:
Neumarm:
Lehman:
Neumann:
Lehman:
Neumann:
Lehman:
Neumann:
Lehman:
Neumann:
Brad, Brad...
Yes.
Could you give about two minutes worth of history how we got here
particularly for some of the new Council members and what led us to
where we are. Thank you.
About a year and a half ago the City Council approved the changes to
the curbside program which was the addition of magazines and mixed
paper and the elimination of glass in our program. A lot of this was
based on waste sort studies that we had done about two years ago that
showed a lot of paper and cardboard products still going into the
landfill on the residential refuge side so we opted to get bigger trucks,
pick up more and unfortunately we had to drop glass in order to get the
magazines and the mixed paper on the truck.
I wish you wouldn't say drop glass. I really do.
Well I never thought of it that way. So that's the program. Rodney
Walls is here. He's the Assistant Superintendent in charge of
collection and he's got a picture of the difference in the trucks. We
have three new trucks. We run five at a time. You can see the track
on the right, I believe, is the new one. It's a lot longer and a lot taller.
Cleaner.
Yeah. A lot bigger. It's got six compartments instead of five. So the
way it's split up is...and we've been advised all along by City Carton
Company, that's where all our materials go, to keep the materials
separated. It's worth more money. It's cleaner. It's easier to handle
for them. So we had to get bigger trucks in order to pick this stuff up.
So the new program starting in...well next week or two weeks - April
3rd will be the first week - be magazines, mixed paper, corrugated
cardboard separate...
Phone books?
NO.
Okay.
1 and 2 plastic, tin cans and what am I missing?...newspaper.
What paper are we not going to pick up besides phone books?
What paper?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Lehman:
Pfab:
Neumann:
Pfab:
Neumann:
Lehman:
Neumann:
Lehm an:
Neumann:
Lehman:
Neumann:
Vanderhoef:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
Neumann:
Vanderhoefi
meumann:
Champion:
Vanderhoef:
Champion:
Page 34
Yeah. Will we pick up everything else?
Bound books.
Well...what' that?
Not bound books.
No, no. Paperback and hardcover books we don't pick up. Phone
books - it's the binding. They don't want.
Okay. Will we mix cardboard and paper - it will be mixed paper, but
cardboard and chip board will still be separate?
No. The one thing xve're switching over is the chip board which is
your cereal box.
Right.
That will now go in with your mixed paper instead of the corrugated.
Okay. So cardboard is separate.
Yeah the big stuff you keep separate and the chip board goes in with
the mixed paper. And mixed paper is just about anything that you can
think off
When I read the thing that came out in the utility bill I thought they
said chip board went in with newspaper.
It does.
That's what he just said.
It's mixed paper
No, no, no. Newspaper is separate.
No newspaper is separate.
Newspaper is still separate. Magazines is in one bag. Newsprint goes
in the bottom.
Oh, newspaper are still being done separate.
Yes.
I didn't realize that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Neumann:
Atkins:
Neumann:
Lehman:
Seumann:
Lehman:
Neumann:
Lehman:
Neumann:
Champion:
Lehman:
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
Neumann:
Lehman:
Neumann:
Lehman:
Neumann:
Neumann:
Page 35
Mixed paper is...
Junk mail.
Junk mail, yes. Junk mail, file folders, office paper.
Office paper.
Greeting cards, cereal boxes.
Newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper - not including books or phone
books and then of course the...
Yes. The magazines.
Well magazines is mixed paper.
No.
No.
Well, you're going to put all this out.
Break this down, Brad.
I don't look at my utility bill.
You don't look at it. We've got six different things, okay?
Alright.
Magazines is going to be one. That is an item that has a value on its
own and we want to keep it that way. Newsprint will be one. That is
another item that has value on its own. Corrugated cardboard are the
big items that we'll cut and put underneath the container - that is
another one. How many am I up to? Three?
Yep.
Mixed paper is another one. Mixed paper consists of well any kind of
white, colored, junk mail, office paper.
Council material.
Council material. But that also goes further. That goes with your
paper towel cores, your chip board, file folders. It's just a wide
variety. It's a very Iow-grade. So you canjust...any kind of paper can
go in there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 36
Pfab:
Neumann:
Champion:
Neumann:
Lehman:
Neumann:
Champion:
Neumann:
Vanderhoef:
Champion:
Neumann:
Champion:
Neumann:
Champion:
Neumann:
P fab:
Neumann:
Lehman:
Vanderhoef:
Neumann:
Now does that the inserts that go in the newspaper...
No, the inserts...anything that comes in the newspaper stays in the
newspaper.
Good. Thank you for explaining that.
So those four items and then we continue to pick up 1 and 2 plastic
and tin cans - the metal cans.
Alright. We're starting that the third of April.
Starting the third of April.
What do we do with our old tracks.
Recycle them. Those are traded in.
We don't landfill them.
I wondered.
No. Those are traded in. We have three new ones. We run five at a
time. Two more next year so all five will be equipped to pick up the
six.
So what are we going to do in the interim?
The interim we'll mix newsprint and magazines on the truck. On the
two. They will still separate it.
That will irritate a lot of people. When they separate it and then you
mix it.
Well, but it's either that or you have to educate two of the routes
separate and we don't ~vant to do that. That will start on April 3rd.
And (can't hear) glass is broken.
Yeah. We're dropping it.
Don't drop the glass.
And there's still a place to recycle.
Yeah. We plan on improving our drop sites to around the City so we
can take more glass and expand to the other paper items that we're
taking at the curb. So yeah we're getting a lot more material in the
same.., in one truck this way.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Atkins:
Rodney Walls:
Atkins:
Walls:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Champion:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
P fab:
Lehman:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Dilkes:
Kanner:
Page 37
Rod or Brad could to the best of your ability.., what percentage of our
citizens recycle - actually put the bin out at the curb? Just your best
guess Rod. I apologize for not tipping you off ahead of time.
Oh, like 75%.
That much. Okay. Good.
Actually each track we have five tracks that go out everyday and they
go by about 600 homes each truck does (can't hear) 776 houses per
day.
It's fine. I have been impressed talking to my colleagues in other
cities that I think our recycling percentage as far as participation by
our citizens is really quite good compared to a lot of other cities. And
! think one of the reasons is we offer such a variety of alternative and
we're expanding those alternatives.
Biggest single reason was the City furnishing the container. That
reminded everybody.
Plus limiting the number of trash bags you could have. That's why it
works.
Well whatever the reason is...
Whatever it is it's working.
It isn't broken.
Pardon?
It isn't broken.
That's right. Except for the glass that they just dropped. Alright.
Thank you.
Thank you Rod and Brad.
Abstention policy I think that's pretty straight forward. Eleanor do
you have any comment on it?
Nothing more.
I have a question. Were the comments in the paper about the Attorney
General saying that it might be illegal. I was wondering if you had
any comment about that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 38
Dilkes:
Lehman:
Dilkes:
Lehman:
Wilbum:
Dilkes:
Lehman:
Wilbum:
Lehman:
Dilkes:
Lehman:
Champion:
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
If I recall the comment in the paper it was that prohibiting abstention
might be illegal, but they have not researched whether you could by
rule determine what its effect might be. And, you know, ! didn't talk
to the Attorney General's office. I don't have the right to request an
opinion from the Attorney General. I didn't talk to the reporter who
talked to the Attorney General so I have no way of kno~ving what was
actually said by the Attorney General's office.
Well the only thing Eleanor is I see it you're the resolution has
proposed the only effect that abstention would ever have other than the
regular vote is in case of a tie it would be counted as an affirmative
vote. In any other case it would be counted with the majority which
would not affect the outcome. So the only effect that it could ever
have by counting it would be in the case of a tie.
Yeah.
Okay.
Unless there was something that needed a supermajority.
Right. And let me just...I should add I proposed that a rule be put in
place because in looking at the files in my office and the City Clerk's
office it appeared that this is about the third time that this has come to
the City Attorney's office and required research. And so it seemed
appropriate to get something done by rule so we don't have to look at
this again.
Okay.
Well and we gave you direction...
...to do it. That's right.
Right. Right.
Okay. City income tax. I imagine this is we're talking about a local
option income tax that would be used to finance our economic
development program. Is that right?
That would be (can't hear).
What a great thing that would be.
Well I think, Steven, either you or Irvin suggested this be on a work
session. And as my understanding ifI remember correctly is that you
were interested in the Council lobbying the State legislature to enable
cities to pass a local option income tax.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 39
Pfab:
Kanner:
Lehman:
Kanner:
Champion:
O'Donnell:
Kanner:
O'Dormell:
Kanner:
Champion:
Lehman:
i don't know ifI stated that, but I would support it.
Well I thought if you put it on the agenda you were going to give us
information.
Well I think it's on the agenda if we have enough interest in it we'll
pursue it.
Could we put it again because I could get some information on this
and I didn't know it was going to be on.
Well only if we have four people who am even interested in it. I think
it would be a big detriment to economic development.
It would be a terrible way to encourage economic growth in Iowa City.
Well, okay actually if we're going to talk about it now it's a way that it
could lessen the impact of property tax which is a much more unfair
tax and it hits people with lower incomes more. When you have an
income tax it's something that takes it from those who could afford it
more. Everyone pays their fair share.
I understand the philosophy, Steven.
Mike you were just...let me just finish what I was saying Mike. You
were making a point so I'm replying to that. I think there have been
bills in the State legislature that have proposing this and I think it's
good for us to do some research into that and make a resolution to our
State legislators that they pass something like this. I think it will be
good for our economy and will diversify our income. One of the big
issues now that's coming up is whether or not internet sales should be
taxed. Currently they're not taxed. And this is one way perhaps to
pick up some of that income at the end of the road. If Congress keeps
a moratorium on the intemet sales tax we could lose a lot. Structures
that are here in Iowa City, businesses that are selling that are being
charged sales tax could lose. This is another way to possibly get some
more income and diversify income that's fair to people and won't keep
hitting people in their property taxes as the only possible way.
The sales tax doesn't come to us. It goes to the State. So if the State
wants to increase income taxes everybody in the State would pay for
it. But to take a region like Iowa City and say we're going to have or
~ve're to promote a 1% or a .5% whatever income tax for Iowa City
that's very detrimental to economic development. So the sales tax I
agree internet purchases should be taxed.
We wouldn't get that tax.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 40
Champion:
Vanderhoef:
Lehman:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Champion:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
We don't get that tax anyway. That tax goes to the State.
All we're looking for is a level playing field with internet sales with
our local retailers who collect the tax for the State, but if they lose our
business there goes our economic development and our tax base
because we lose our businesses if they're having to constantly
compete.
Well imagine if you will what that would do to the University of Iowa
when it comes to recruiting top-notch people. If a portion of their
income is going to go into local income tax. Now they already
complain that we have difficulty competing in the arena with larger
universities to get top-notch people. You look at the University of
Iowa, the largest employer in probably one of the very largest in the
State of Iowa, with some very, very competent, wealthy people.
You've got almost every local industry - they're top people. And if
we want to talk about urban sprawl if they did decide to work here
they sure as heck wouldn't live in town they'd live in the county. I
have no interest in discussion.
I don't either.
I don't know if there are four people who do.
A penny wise and a pound foolish.
I disagree with that statement, but I'm not sure that there's enough
interest to pursue it. I don't see more votes.
If we had the option right now I wouldn't entertain it for a heartbeat
even consider trying to use it.
Well, you would consider a sales tax referendum.
We did.
I don't think the economic effect of a sales tax and is proven all over
the state has had a negative effect on any local economy anywhere.
No, but it's a case of equity.
Well the same thing is tree of property taxes.
But the same thing is true with income taxes.
But in any event. Okay? Council time. Who would like to be first?
We all...I'm sorry. Go.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 41
Wilburn:
Lehman:
Wilbum:
O'Donnell:
Wilburn:
O'Donnell:
Wilburn:
O'Donnell:
Karr:
Lehman:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
Lehman:
! gave Steven a heads up that I was going to bring this up, but the
proposed or suggested meeting between the Northside neighborhood
and the group that does the supported living...
How did that...my letter indicated that Council was going to be there
and I don't know how we got that information that the Council was
going to be at that meeting.
I just have a question about because Steven you had mentioned that
you had suggested that this...that you had been talking to the
Northside neighbors or someone to try to encourage them to meet with
the group that's doing supportive living. I'm just curious about the
process that...if this meeting is a definite meeting set then I think we
might need to talk about how... I don't if there's some
miscommunication or what, but if there's a meeting that's set and I
don't know about it even if it's an option for me to be there - but if
it's communicated that Council is going to be there then I'm interested
in knowing how this came to be setting up so that I didn't have an
opportunity to say yes or no I'm going to be there. Because if it's
communicated to people...I don't know who received this.
Ross I didn't...we just received a notice they were having this meeting
and no formal invitation at all. I didn't interpret it that way.
Was that memo sent to the Northside Neighborhood Association?
It was in our packet.
Okay.
And I certainly didn't get any invitation.
It was loose in your packet. It was not part of your information packet.
It was just loose correspondence.
I think your question is how did it come out as being a meeting where
Council would be in attendance where Council didn't know anything
about it.
When did it come about? I mean how did you hear that?
It was in a letter we got in our packet.
I didn't even notice that part. I just know the meeting was Thursday
night at 7:00...
We have been invited to attend a meeting...where is it? ! got the letter
here somewhere.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 42
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
Wilbum:
Lehman:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Atkins:
But it's certainly an option to say "no."
That's my point.
Well the point is if it's communicated to any community group that
it's a possibility that the Council members could be there then we
haven't had a discussion one whether or not that's something any of us
would be willing to do; two - input into when that meeting would
occur if we're interested in being there; three if I can't...well I can't
make that meeting. Well I can't make that meeting and this is a
potentially hot issue to receive correspondence about it. If people are
going to show up there well I don't see Ross there. Ross must not care
about this when I didn't even an option to decide whether or not, you
know, this is something I might want to prioritize into the day.
Well the wording is, "This meeting will provide neighbors opportunity
to discuss the proposal with staff of Successful Living Incorporated,
members of the Iowa City Council, City Staff and the Housing and
Community Development Commission." That's the wording in the
letter. Steve I think this was from...from the City...
I think probably if we have letters that go out that indicate that Council
people will be there we probably ought to get some sort of consensus
from Council before we tell the neighbors.
My concern, Ernie, is really two-fold. One is that this implies
participation by the Council without your approval.
That's correct.
And I think as far as having meetings with the residents - whether it be
called by the neighborhood association, whether it be called by
Successful Living - is really very much up to them. And we'll do our
best to facilitate it. But I spoke with Marsha about this and I think the
representation that members of the City Council will discuss the
proposal is where I have the most trouble about this and for you. You
have an obligation at public hearings to allow people to come in an
open forum to express their opinions and I think this leaves the
implication that you'r~ going to be discussing it - which to me means
formal meeting, open meetings, got to be recorded, got to be posted.
And I have instructed the Staff in future that meetings implying
participation by the City Council have got to cross my desk. So I can
bring it back to you and let you decide...now this wouldn't be so bad
if the term "members of the City Council" was stricken.., was stricken,
was not there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Pfab:
Atkins:
Wilburn:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
O'Donnell:
Vanderhoef:
Dilkes:
Vanderhoefi
Dilkes:
Atkins:
Dilkes:
Atkins:
Dilkes:
Champion:
Karmer:
Page 43
Or were invited.
Or invited. But I think - and I mean this as candidly as I can -
politically there are going to be those of you who can be very sensitive
about - yeah I want to be there, no I can't, now I'm upset because
of...and that gets us nowhere, but a lot of friction amongst us
collectively.
That's what I'm looking for is a process so that we know.
Well this has never happened before.
Alright. Who is intending to be there?
Well I did plan on going.
I thought I'd go.
I didn't know about it till this morning.
Well can...and this I mean brings up another issue. We now have an
open meeting issue. I think we just need a clear commitment from
Council as well as Staff that you all realize that you can't commitment
your other Council members and that there shouldn't be any statement
to that effect being put out to the public. So because we just...(can't
hear).
Was it put out that...?
It says right in the...
Yes.
...in the notice Council members...
It says members of the City Council
...members of the Council will be...and you know and so...
Where did Marsha get that?
Let me tell you from my perspective what happened and see if this led
to that statement, i had - like many of us received calls about the
Northside and I also had gone to the CDBG hearing and saw the
presentation...saw some of the presentations. And so I suggested to
the person from the Northside that talked to me that maybe we could
get together - you can get the groups together Successful Living and
the Northside and some folks from our Commission and Staff to talk
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 44
Champion:
Wilbum:
Vanderhoef:
Lehman:
Atkins:
Lehman:
about some of these issues instead of talking at each other because
they said there wasn't communication happening. So I said can you
get a meeting together and Marsha said she could. And she said, "Did
you want to attend?" I said, "Yes." "Did you want to invite any other
Council members?" I said, "The Mayor." I suggested the Mayor.
And that was the last I left it. So I pursued it. I think it's a worthwhile
thing to have this. I think there was a mistake in stating that the
Council was going to be there. Hopefully it won't happen again like
that.
I think it's important, Steven, that you try not to make arrangements
without talking to the rest of us. I mean I think you're not really...you
are an individual, but we are a group and we normally act as a group.
And I think this has created a real problem because the Northside is
going to be very upset when we're not all there. And of course we're
not all going to be there. And I just don't think it's a good way to
handle things. Maybe we need to get a kind of a goal session for you
so that we can talk about this kind of problem.
I'd be up for a goal-setting, but just in hearing you describe it, it
doesn't sound like it was your intent. Maybe it (can't hear) when we
talking in your absence (can't hear) with Staff make sure we're being
clear about what it is we're asking for and then make sure we're
saying this is for me. And if the question comes up from a staff person
should other Council members be invited that the flag for us just to say
well I got to check.
Well I think there's another process in here though because right now
is when we should have been talking about it to begin with. And they
can invite us at any time and we can say yes we can or no we can't or
design it how we want to design it. But to put out that we're going to
have meeting...we have a public hearing process that works for all of
us and makes it here and we have the benefit of recording it and doing
all those kinds of things. And it's real important that every Councilor
has that opportunity to participate. And until we change our public
hearing process this other just doesn't work.
Did the other people who are listed here as attending that meeting were
those people contacted before the letter was sent out notifying them
that they were...?
That Ernie I don't know.
Well I mean I guess I did not know about this until I got the note from
the packet. I mean I had no idea it was going to take place. And I did
get the note. But I think that in future that if something like that is to
go out that at least the folks who are invited to attend who are
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 45
Atkins:
Wilburn:
Lehman:
Champion:
Atkins:
Wilburn:
Pfab:
Atkins:
Vanderhoefi
Lehman:
Vanderhoef:
Lehman:
mentioned in letter should be notified that they're being mentioned in
the letter.
Again my concern with Marsha is - and we had a nice talk about
it...this is one of the first things I got this morning was just getting
back - discussing the proposal. I mean that implies that you're going
to be sitting at the table with all these folks and possibly the audience
to discuss, debate, do whatever. And in principal it's probably not a
bad idea. But I think it should occur at the very least after a public
hearing and with the clear intention that not members of...it should
say the City Council. If you're going to be there as an active
participant, two or three of you being there does not represent the
policy of City Council. And if you're going to engage in a discussion
or debate you know somebody is not going to agree with what
somebody else said or represents.
So if I want to meet with representatives or some citizens for input for
me.
Do it.
Do it.
Do it. I don't see any trouble with that.
No problem with that.
I think the best thing that came out of this was Steve's statement that
before anymore letters go out I have to...
It's got to...and I hope you don't mind that because I think ! have a
good idea of your agenda and what's involved because again candidly
folks you have a promised meeting with PCRB, a promised meeting
with Parks and Recreation Commission. Now you're going to be
going to this before meeting with them. I don't want them to get upset
with you that you found time to fit this one in, but not them.
Well what are we going to do then for Thursday night because it's put
out that we'll ali be there, but it's not a posted meeting for Council
and...
It can be a posted meeting. We have time to post it.
It could be.
And if there are going to four of us there we're going to have to post it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 46
Atkins:
Dilkes:
Kanner:
Champion:
Lehman:
Vanderhoef:
O'Donnell:
Vanderhoefi
If there are four of you there you'll have to post it. If there are only
three then...and also would encourage you to be cautious about
discussing the proposal without benefit of a public hearing.
Can I just make an analogy. I think if you knew P&Z was considering
something that was eventually going to come to you, you might go to
the P&Z meetings, you might read the minutes that kind of thing. But
I don't think that you xvould probably hold a meeting with the
applicant and the neighbors who were opposed to the proposed
rezoning and that kind of thing. In fact I got a call from one Council
member earlier in the week who had been getting some input from
neighbors and my suggestion was you know this will come to you.
You know gather your information, you know, do your study, get
through your thinking about it. But again as I always remind you it's
really not appropriate to get committed before that public hearing.
I'd be willing to not go to the meeting if there's three other people.
But I think this...the main purpose in my mind of this meeting is you
have people that have antagonistic views and saying they're not able to
talk to others. And I think our job as Councilors is to try to bring these
folks together. My purpose is not to go there and make policy or make
decision, but hopefully to have these people talk to each other. I think
it's a good thing. I think that we can explain to them that there was a
misunderstanding. I think people would understand that. And if none
of us wants to go that would be fine. I think it's good that they're
getting together and they're talking with the staff there. I think that's
going to be a positive thing. If we want to decide none of us to go that
might be the best thing.
What do you think?
Well what do you folks want to do? The only problem I have with
meeting like this and ! don't disagree. If I want to discuss any issue
that we ever come up with on my own with anybody I'll do it and I
feel perfectly comfortable doing that. I don't feel quite as comfortable
going to a meeting that is arranged where - and one of the first things
you learn on Council and the sooner you learn it, the easier your life is
- is that you only get one side of the story no matter who you talk to
and there's always two sides. And many times meetings like this do a
really good job of lobbying Council people for a position without
having really seen the other position.
That's why public hearings are so important.
So what are you suggesting?
That's where our discussion should be.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 47
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
Vanderhoef:
Champion:
Pfab:
Champion:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Champion:
P fab:
O'Donnell:
Pfab:
Champion:
Lehman:
Kanner:
Atkins:
Kanner:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
Should we not go to the meeting.
Well I think if we do not go to the meeting - and what is...how does
the Council feel about it?
I would like to send a letter to them saying what our concern is and
why none of us are there.
Well because it says we're all going to be there then I think no matter
what you say to them if part of us are there and part of us aren't - like
Ross can't be there.
I can't.
Exactly. They will say.
You can't?
Meeting Thursday night.
Maybe he's not interested because...
I would like to go...
I think it's a good idea. Send a letter.
We decline with regrets.
Right.
Well I think there's more to it than that. We need to explain that it
would make it a meeting requiring public notice, that we would have
to have a recorder there at the meeting, and that we would be more
properly take their input at a public hearing - both the input from the
neighborhood and Successful Living and those other folks who are
interested as a Council. Individually they're all invited to discuss
anything with us.
Which will happen April 18th is it the public hearing on the CDBG?
Sounds about right.
So they'll have that opportunity for public hearing.
Plus they can call us individuals.
Do we want to do that?
I think that's best.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Lehman:
Atkins:
Champion:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Vanderhoefi
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Atkins:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Page 48
Can you get...?
Shall I draft a letter for Ernie, you rework it and then whoever is at this
meeting they would read the letter on your behalf and the rest of the
Council.
I think the way that letter is worded that's just bad for anybody not to
go. You know.
And it doesn't mean that they can't have their meeting because I think
Marsha is a very good facilitator...
Yeah she is.
...kind of person who can go and let those groups talk to each other
and maybe they can work out some of their differences or at least get
information across with each other and let Marsha be a facilitator.
Is there any...there is nothing wrong with (can't hear).
Oh no. They do what they want it just lends some official...
Right it makes it sticky.
It makes it sound official if the Council indicates they' re going to be
there and I think we're probably best off to send a letter.
I'll work up something for you.
Anything else for Council time?
I have a question. When is the best time to fix a leaky roof?.
When the sun is shinning.
Okay. The sun is shinning. I think it's time we take another look at
our snow removal ordinance so by next winter that we have a chance
to rebuild.
What is particular are you talking about?
Getting snow offthe sidewalks.
Sidewalk.
Right. It just something...
And that's a problem for every community everywhere.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 49
Pfab: Right, but I think it's a lot better to take it and look at it now when the
sun is shining.
Atkins: It would involve really we can contact a halfa dozen towns and see
what their ordinances are.
Lehman: That's worth doing.
Atkins: Collect them for you. Okay. We'll do that.
Champion: i did have something.
Lehman: Yes.
Vanderhoef: I do too.
Lehman: So do I.
Champion: As a new Council - and we have a lot of new people - we have not
had a goal setting session. I really do think ~ve need to do that.
Pfab: I would encourage that.
Vanderhoef: And I would like you to take a look at the materials that I handed out
early in January to see if there's anything there that (can't hear) about
how to go about some of this.
Lehman: We need to set that fairly soon after all we are three months into the
year.
Champion: I didn't bring my calendar with me, but maybe ~ve could put that on
the next work session on the 8th.
Lehman: We can do that.
Champion: Okay.
Lehman: Okay. I got two other things. One of the things - and I hesitate to
bring it up, but I'm going to bring it up - two years ago we discussed
the rules that we impose on the public...
(End of Side 1, Tape #00-39, Beginning of Side 2)
Lehman: ...and decided not to do that. I am interested in the feeling of the
Council and Council people limiting themselves to the same rules that
we have with the public.
Champion: We don't enforce it for the public.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 50
Lehman:
Champion:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
O'Dormell:
Vanderhoef:
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
Lehman:
We come pretty close.
But we don't.
Pretty close.
Is there a way that we could get a clock.
Yeah we could do that.
A clock that's visible for everyone on the side wall. You set it when
your time starts. When it's over that's it. You shut up.
There are cities that use red, green and yellow lights. The green light
is for the first four minutes. The yellow light comes on after four
minutes and the red light comes on at five minutes and the mic goes
off.
And you're oft'.
There's also talk about a trap door.
No trap door. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask us to be as
efficient as we ask the public to be when they come up.
Iagee.
We hold them to five minutes I think it's only reasonable to expect we
be as efficient as we ask them to be.
Well I guess I'd like to know and obviously I'm talking about the
statement that you read at the last Council meeting for I don't know
how long that we all discussed the previous night. And obviously you
were reading that for the public and for cameras and whatever. And
because of the length of the meeting I felt it was inappropriate to go
back item by item by item and discuss the items that you brought up so
obviously we didn't. But that used an inordinate amount of time. I
don't have a problem if the rest of the Council doesn't, but I think that
is...if we all did that we wouldn't get through three resolutions a night.
Well even if we discussed all the points you brought up in the letter wc
would have been there for another two hours.
Well we did discuss them the night before.
The night before, but I mean but that night.
But are we interested in us limiting ourselves?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 51
Vanderhoef:
Kanner:
Lehman:
Pfab:
O'Donnell:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
Lehman:
O'Donnell:
Pfab:
Lehman:
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
I think three minutes actually, Ernie and I think we should all speakers
to the five minute limit. There are some speakers that you allow to go
past the five minutes.
I try that and of course obviously when we get some questions then it
stops, but I try at five minutes to tell people that it's time to...
I think the clock thing is and I'd like to see one with the hand back or
either so something so they can look at it and they can judge ho~v
much time they have. When the clock is up you just stop.
I'd rather...
Wait. I have one more thing to say.
You still have a minute left and you're through.
It's such a rare opportunity that something tried to speak for longer for
five minutes or that a Council tries to speak longer than three minutes
or four minutes. Those things do not happen that often. And for those
rare occasions are we going to put a big clock on the wall that's
coming down or red, yellow or blue lights. You know it's not a
constant problem.
No, I think thought I guess all I would like is the permission from the
Council to remind each of us or the public - and I have no problem
with three nfinutes as far as that goes. But I think that definitely for a
Council person to go on more than five minutes when we tell the
public they can't is inappropriate.
i agree.
I think in fairness to the public I think they have to realize that if they
come they'll get a chance to talk, but there is a limitation. I think
uniformity there's nothing wrong with it.
Okay. We'll try it.
But we had at the last meeting we had people shouting out at the
audience. We had one guy jump up a half a dozen times and there has
to be some control. You have to be somewhat efficient running a
meeting. And, I mean this one guy jumping up five or six times
jumped right in front of people who were waiting in line to speak.
And that's inappropriate.
We will try harder.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 52
Wilbum:
Lehman:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Kan':
Lehman:
Vanderhoefi
Kan':
Atkins:
Pfab:
Atkins:
I think that's a reasonable thing to ask, Ernie. I think it also might
behoove us as part of goal session setting to just talk about a goal
about our own professional conduct with each other and civility and
ho~v we can try to model that for everyone else.
Well you know if we're going to be effective we're going to have to be
a team. That's all there is to it. We have to work together if we're
going to be effective. And I think that that's...and I think the goal
setting session that we'll try to set at the next work session. Alright.
I've got one other thing and you may have some others, but we've
been asked the Chamber Business Fair is this weekend at Carver
Hawkeye. There is an elected official's booth. We try to have
someone from the City in the booth on Friday...pardon me on
Saturday and Sunday. And there are times...I think we all go this. Do
you want to look at it and fill it in tomorrow night?
Okay what about the ones in the City booths.
Yeah I'll comment on that for you as soon as you finish that.
Well I'm through because I think we've got to fill this in tomorrow
night.
Can 1...the time is short that the reason that I set it that's the third time
it was in there. You are to call the person directly. So waiting...I
mean if you can wait till tomorrow night the phone numbers.., there
are two phone numbers on there. You need not go through City
offices. I've gotten Ross' and I've gotten...we've taken care of those.
Well, but we need.
What I wanted to do though is I wanted to do the City ones first before
we made these phone calls. That's what I've been waiting for.
Okay.
I've spoke with the Staff and we're going to have a number of booths.
The...you should feel free to go to the booth at the time you're there.
If you don't know the employees, please introduce yourselves.
They're all looking forward to you being there. And those of you
who've done it before you know it's really a lot of fun and the
employees really get a kick out of it. So just if you see a booth you
like tag along.
But the time that we go is manning a City Council booth. Is that right?
There is no City Council booth.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Pfab:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Lehman:
rarr:
Lehman:
malT:
Lehman:
Kan':
Vanderhoef:
Lehman:
Vanderhoef:
Lehman:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Page 53
Elected officials booth.
That's a different issue.
City, County...
So in other words if somebody.., if other people are counting on us
being at the booth then that's where...
That's correct and I think we sign up for two hours.
I think there's a convention - Johnson County Democratic (can't
hear). So I'll work around it. I'll be there.
Alright. Tomorrow night though we'll fill in the slot. You'll tell us
what slot you have filled in so we won't all be there at the same time.
You have it? We're going to do that tomorrow night.
There are a number of slots so I mean if you just give it me we'll do it.
But I mean we just need to know tomorrow night. Just give it to me
loose and we'll know.
That's fine except we'd like to see to it that someone is there during
the time the public officials' booths are open so that we don't all
schedule...
You don't have enough people unless you're going to overlap to open
it the whole time. The slots aren't available.
Can I take my dog Peaches?
You can take Peaches.
Peaches votes a lot.
Alright. Anything else for Council time?
Yeah. There's a letter in the packet about the Transit Center and the
confusion of the difference ~vith the new Transit Center and the stop
downtown...
Right.
...at Capital Mall.
Oh.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Page 54
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Vanderhoefi
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Champion:
Atkins:
And I think somehow or another we need to put out something in the
press and a letter to this lady to reassure her that we're not closing
down the stop at Capital Center.
Well and that the Transit Center...the transit...the city bus transit
offices are going to be at - from the public's perspective will be at
the Old Capital Center even though there will be a bus stop there.
Assuming we get an agreement from Old Capital.
We haven't got that yet?
It's starting to stretch out, but I will prepare a letter Dee and see that
it's taken care of.
Okay. Thanks. Another one - I've been getting calls from folks who
live on First Avenue and they are counting the number of trucks that
are going up and down First Avenue. And their concern is if there is
an embargo and if there was some agreement with Hy-Vee and so
forth there are still tracks rumbling up and down that and that there are
also trucks rumbling down Rochester probably looking for a way to
get onto 1-80 from that area. So I wonder if anyone is interested in
looking at whether we should start posting that or whether we're going
to put an embargo or what we're going to do.
A couple things I'd do. One if you can get the name of the trucking
company we go right to them. That has worked very well for us and
we just call them and write them a letter. If you got them, jot them
down and I'll see that they....because those companies generally we
don't want them wandering down residential neighborhoods anymore
than you want us to wander around them.
Well and maybe signage out of the Scott Boulevard corner...
Absolutely.
...would help us somehow or another. I don't know.
I hear what you're saying. If you can get me some specifics on that.
I'll sure contact them and as far as if there's some si gnage that we
could get folks that are coming in Herbert Hoover Highway hang a left
down Scott that's where you're supposed to be and then go into Hy-
Vee. I could do that. Okay.
I think a lot of the Hy-Vee trucks go down Rochester to get to
Drugtown.
Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Champion:
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Champion:
Vanderhoefi
Pfab:
Lehman:
Pfab:
Atkins:
Pfab:
O'Dormell:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
O'Donnell:
Atkins:
Vanderhoefl
Lehman:
Champion:
Page 55
And then instead of going back all the way to Scott they go down First
Avenue.
That's where they go.
Well and then there's lots of other suppliers that are not in Hy-Vee
trucks.
That's what I mean.
And they're the ones that are all taking First Avenue.
That probably means that maybe that it would be a good time to
contact the Hy-Vee people to let...to post it on...
They know it.
No just so at the point of deliver that the City... the people of the City
are concerned.
I could do that.
Just as a good neighbor mention...
We also need to...where are we on the dog park Steve?
The dog park is back to the Commission. I've asked Terry to put
together project plans, general idea, and bring it back to you. So it's in
the mail.
It's on the leash.
On the leash.
Another call today was about burning within the City limits and this
one happened to be under the bridge, 500 South Gilbert. And I would
like to know why we have burning going on underneath the bridge.
They're cooking.
They're cooking.
Well that may well be...
If they're cooking on a campfire it's not illegal.
You cook on a grill.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.
Dilkes:
Atkins:
Dilkes:
Atkins:
Dilkes:
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
Vanderhoefi
Lehman:
Page 56
I think there's a staff meeting set up with various interested staff
members to talk about that.
In fact yeah we've had that complaint too Dee.
But it does not...the opinion of the Fire Marshall I think was that it
didn't violate our open burning ordinance.
But we have...
But there's an issue that staff is going to discuss.
There has been a huge fire under there. (Can't hear) several years
back.
House warming.
That's all I have.
Okay. Anybody else? See you tomorrow night.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of March 20, 2000.