HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-06 Transcription#1 Page 1
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER.
ROLL CALL.
Lehman: First thing I would like to do, on behalf of the Council and a large majority of the
voters of Iowa City, is welcome our two newest Council people. We're really
looking forward to the next years with you folks, and as a reminder, our retreat
for Thursday has been changed to 8:45, from 8:00, to accommodate Mr.
O'Donnell (laughter).
O'Donnell: That's not true (laughter).
Lehman: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#2 Page 2
ITEM 2. OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARDS - Horace
Mann Elementary
Lehman: If the young folks from Horace Mann would come forward please. Seems
kind of appropriate that on the first meeting of the new year, we start out
by doing one of the things that's probably the most fun, and probably
really one of the most important things that we do as a Council. We
recognize young folks as outstanding student citizens. It's something !
know the entire Council enjoys, and they all wish they were standing right
here, getting to do what I get to do. But we're very, very proud of you
folks. We're very happy to do this, and I know that there's parents out
there, I can't help it but there's got to be grandparents out there, who are
just as excited about this as you are, so what I would like you to do, if you
would, read your name and then tell why you were nominated.
Yapp: Andrew Wilkes is a sixth grader at Horace Mann Elementary in Mr.
Kent's class. Andrew contributes to his community in many ways. Being
medias assistant, Andrew helps pre-schoolers return and checkout books
from the library. Another way Andrew helps out at school is by providing
childcare to kids during their conferences. He is a junior staff at the
before and after school program. With this, Andrew helps by serving
snacks and drinks to kids, as well as being a role model. Andrew is also
on safety patrol and in the extended learning program at school. He plays
violin in the Eastside Orchestra. Andrew's hobbies are listening to music,
playing football, and spending time with his friends and family. He also
enjoys reading books by Gary Polson and William Sleeter.
(applause)
Lehman: Okay...Andrew.
Wilkes: Asumi Shibata is a sixth grader in Horace Mann Elementary in Miss
Mulligan's class. She is in EOP writing group, and also part of book club.
Asumi is in the Eastside Orchestra, and has been playing cello for three
years. She works very well with everyone, and reading and writing are
her favorite subjects. Asumi is an enthusiastic reader who is constantly
reading. Asumi, or at school, she is a media assistant who shuts down
computers. She also loves hamsters and dogs, and is completely obsessed
with Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean (laughter).
(applause)
Shibata: Margaret Yapp is a fifth grader in Miss Taylor's class. Margaret thinks
being a good citizen is not only being nice, but putting yourself in other's
shoes and treating them how you would want to be treated. Margaret's
classmates describe her as helpful, nice, caring, generous, and a good
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#2 Page 3
friend. Margaret is doing an EOP research project on the different zones
of the ocean. She is concerned about how the pollution affects the animals
in the ocean. Margaret plays soccer and softball. Margaret enjoys
listening to all kinds of music and plays the flute.
(applause)
Lehman: I have a microphone which I better use. I have plagues for each one of
you which read: For outstanding qualities of leadership within Horace
Mann Elementary, as well as the community, and for sense of
responsibility and helpfulness to others, we recognize these as outstanding
student citizens. Your community is proud of you. Presented by the Iowa
City City Council. Margaret, is your father somebody we know?
(laughter) Is that...John Yapp, who is one of our fine City employees, so
congratulations to you, John, too. Margaret, Andrew, Asumi (hands them
plagues)
(applause)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#4 Page 4
ITEM 4. COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)
[UNTIL 8 PM]
Lehman: This is the time reserved on the agenda for folks to address the Council on items
that do not otherwise appear on the agenda. If you wish to address the Council,
please sign in, give your name, address, and limit your comments to five minutes
or less.
Arpey: Hi, members of the City Council, my name is Chris Arpey, and I'm a resident of
Iowa City on its southwest side. I'm asking to speak with you tonight in my role
as President of the Iowa Soccer Club. This non-profit group has been in
existence since 1997, and serves approximately 250 children from ages six to
nineteen, as well as their families, mostly from the Iowa City, Coralville area.
Our children participate in soccer year-round under the direction of a
professional coaching staff, led by Jon Cook, who's also here tonight. We enjoy
a collegial relationship with the recreational Kickers soccer organization, well
known in this conmaunity, and the Iowa City Alliance Soccer Club ~vhich also
plays soccer year-round, and has professional coaching. We are here to ask your
consideration to grant a temporary variance in zoning for a vacant warehouse
located at 2804 Industrial Park Road in southeast Iowa City, for future use as an
indoor soccer practice facility. There are two buildings at this former site orR.
M. Boggs Company ~vhich has recently relocated to North Liberty. The property
is now owned and managed by Dean and Evelyn Oakes and Mid-Iowa Ventures
Inc., and that company's CEO, Clint McChesney, who's intending to be here
tonight, has signed the statement with me and is represented by Mike Hirsch.
Clint took ill today and he is unable to be here with us tonight. One of the
buildings at that site is currently in use as office and storage space, but the other
building remains vacant and the company is interested in making improvements
to the building such that it could be put to use primarily as an indoor soccer
practice facility. The Iowa Soccer Club is very interested in leasing such space
and I will now outline why this is so. There is currently no space in Johnson
County available to children that has artificial turf and is readily available to
them for use for soccer, and soccer is arguably the most widely played sport by
children in this city. Our club competes for space to practice, on hardwood
floors, with at least a dozen other deserving groups, on a regular basis throughout
the winter season. The Scanlon Gym, elementary school gyms, and Cosgrove
Institute, located 9 miles west of Iowa City in rural Cosgrove, are our current
options. The nearest facility with indoor turf available to children is in Hiawatha.
Although most people consider soccer to be an outdoor sport, the indoor game is
becoming increasingly popular, and is important to skill development in children.
Having a variety of recreational activities for children is desirable, we believe, in
any community. Please allow me now to outline what we ~vould like to
specifically ask of you, and our rationale that our request is not only feasible but
also desirable. We would like to ask that you grant a temporary variance of
zoning for the vacant building on Industrial Park Road from industrial to a
category suitable to allow use for recreational purposes as we've previously
outlined. We are asking for a period of 60 to 120 months to allow Mid-Iowa
Ventures to recoup its investment on the improvements while allowing the
children a place to practice for several seasons. We believe it is important for
Council to know that Mid-Iowa Ventures has already engaged the involvement of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#4 Page 5
Iowa City staff, such as the Police Department, Fire Department, and staff
members of Planning and Zoning, in considering use of this building for this
purpose. We believe there are several reasons why such a request might be
reasonable in your eyes, and those of others in Iowa City. First, many families
are excited to have access to such space, with artificial turf, much closer to town,
with options for parents closer by, such as retailers and grocers in the Scott Blvd.,
and First Avenue areas, while their kids practice. Second, the City appears to
have an interest in further developing its southeast side, and such activities in a
currently vacant building will bring favorable attention to that portion of the city.
Third, demand for indoor recreational space in cold weather is at a premium in
our community, and the burden on schools and other public spaces will be
lessened by having this facility in place. Fourth, there's five items total, fourth,
no public money will be expended on such a project, and yet the community will
have the opportunity to see how much interest there truly is in such a place on a
long-term basis when located elsewhere in the community. And last, since the
request is for a temporary variance, the long-term success of the industrial park
and the tax base it provides will not be at risk. Thank you in advance for
considering our request. We would be please to answer any questions you may
have this evening or at a future time. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Chris.
O'Donnell: Thank you.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Motion and second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Steve,
would you get back to us on that.
Atkins: I'll follow up on that for you.
Lehman: Okay, thank you.
Hayek: Good evening. My name is Matt Hayek. I am a member ofthe Board of
Directors at the Englert Civic Theatre here in Iowa City, and on behalf of the
Englert, I also want to welcome the new members to the City Council. The
reason I'm here tonight, and I'm here with the Englert's architect, John Shaw,
concerns three doors at the backside of the Englert along the alley way. The
Englert and Mr. Shaw made a request a while back to the City for a code
modification to make some changes around those three doors where they exit
onto the alley, and we've got our reasons for it. We're not here tonight to get
into them, but they concern fire safety, crime prevention, and the building's
integrity itself. The request to make the code modification was denied by City
staft; and the Englert is seeking a review of that. I spoke with the City
Attorney's office and was informed that because of the issue, the appropriate
route to take was to send a letter to you folks and ask that we be made part of the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#4 Page 6
agenda item for an upcoming meeting, and that's simply all I'm asking, that Mr.
Shaw and I are here for tonight. I sent a letter in last week. I'm not sure if it's
part of your packets. I made sure Mayor Lehman got it a couple of days ago.
Again, all we're asking is that this issue be made an item, an agenda item, at the
next possible meeting, and at that point we could discuss the merits of our
request.
Dilkes: As I understand it, what Mr. Hayek is talking about is an agreement for
temporary use of the public right-of-way which is within the authority of the
Public Works Director to grant, and the public works director has decided that he
doesn't approve of that use and so we told Mr. Hayek that he would have to
come to you to talk about that. It's not a code amendment. Public use, or use of
the public right-of-way.
Hayek: And I'd be happy to answer any questions you have, but again, we're not trying
to argue the merits of our request, or the City's response at this time.
Vanderhoef: So it would be work meeting item?
Lehman: Well it's an issue that we would probably want some information.
Atkins: I have the letter from John and Matt, it came in Friday. It'll be in your packet
this Thursday.
Lehman: So we can get the information in the next work....okay.
Atkins: Yes.
Dilkes: If you want to talk about it you just need to schedule a work session.
Lehman: All right.
O'Donnell: So should we put this on a work session?
Lehman: Well I think we'll get the information from Steve, and then we can schedule it for
a ~vork session.
Atkins: I doa't have the details yet, other than I have Matt and John's letter, and I'm
forwarding it to you.
Lehman: Well we can get the letters and the details, and then we can do something.
Atkins: Yes, I'll prepare that for you, Ernie.
Lehman: Thank you.
Hayek: Great, thank you very much.
Lehman: Anyone else who would like to address the Council?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 7
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
a. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 119.94 ACRES FROM
INTERIM DEVELOPMENT TO SINGLE-FAMILY, IDRS AND
INTERIM DEVELOPMENT MULTI-FAMILY, IDRM, TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY - SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OPDH-5, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF
PEPPERWOOD ADDITION AND EAST OF GILBERT
STREET. (REZ03-00020)
Lehman: This is a public hearing. Public hearing is open.
Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. My name is Joe Holland. I
represent the applicant on this particular rezoning application. Each of you
should have received from me by now a little brochure giving some explanation
of what we see as one of the fundamental issues in this application. This is really
the culmination of a long process that actually started in the year 2000, and here
it is 2004 and it's finally coming before you. It's a real challenge some times to
be in this position where you've heard from the City staff and heard from other
sources to try and explain what the issues are and how they affect the project,
how they affect the community, so I hope you'll indulge me if maybe I run over
the five minutes you typically allow. I'll try and be as concise as I can. Perhaps
if you do schedule tours, as I believe the Mayor suggested last night, you could
let us or the public come along to see what this is about and also to hear ~vhat
comments and presentations the staffmake in those sorts of venues. I kind of
feel like we have the burden of proof hem, but we've got much less opportunity
to make our case to the Council members. That being said, I think it's important
to keep in mind all the positives that have come through this project over the last
four years, and what has been accomplished. This all started with Southgate's
desire to satisfy citizens' concerns about how this project could be developed.
They hired Randall Arendt, and I don't know how many people on the Council
are familiar with Randall Arendt. He's a nationally recognized expert in
conservation subdivision design. The desire to preserve as much open space, in
this case prairie, as possible, while still maximizing opportunities for housing in
the area. The open space requirement in this particular plot you have in front of
you, has been fully satisfied by the water ways and the storm water detention
areas within the subdivision. The prairie you see as dedicated to the City is not
necessary to satisfy any City requirements. Perhaps it overstates it, but in
essence that's a gift to the City's Parks and Recreation department, as part of the
development of this project in response to both what the neighbors would like to
see in the community, and what the City would like to see. That's been in this
proposal ever since the concept was developed. There have been a number of
other changes, principally for two reasons. One is to satisfy City design
concerns. There are all sorts of requirements, like paving width, turn radiuses,
that Art wasn't aware of when he laid this out. It's also to satisfy input that
Southgate's received from both citizens at community meetings, and also from
your City staff, l've been on the other side, and some of you Council members
remember when I was here opposing a Southgate project, but even then when I
did that, I told the people that I was representing that I felt fortunate that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 8
Southgate was the opponent because they're much more flexible, much more
willing to compromise, and a long-term resident of the community, unlike some
of the other people that come before this Council with projects. So I have
somewhat of a unique perspective on this, not having been involved in it from the
beginning, and having been in fact involved in opposition to similar projects.
Southgate has worked out or agreed to every request that City staff has made,
except one, and we'll come back to that a little bit. I've got here a stack of plats.
Each one of these is a different plat. They're not repetitious (couldn't hear).
These are the revisions that this project has gone through once the first
preliminary plat was developed after the Randall Arendt concept. That's what
has been done largely in response to City technical specifications and design
concepts which the Planning staff asked to be incorporated. Things like street
layouts, lot locations, trail connections, road improvements, many, many other
details, yet that final product, and I've shown you in what I've sent, what the
concept plan looked like in the finaI plat, it's remarkably similar to that original
concept. You also have seen what a proposal would look like if this were all
sixty foot lots with no prairie, and that's not what we're asking for. Instead you
have, what I think is potentially great project, a true compromise in all the best
senses of that word. Now that brings us that one lingering issue where we
haven't been able to come to a compromise. That relates to what pejoratively in
Planning services are called "snout houses", that's because garages extend
beyond the front line of the door of the house. And what we're talking about in
terms of Sandhill Estates which is the subdivision and the area for mzoning, we
really don't know. Nobody knows. Not Southgate, no one else, what will be
built in that area. That's something that the owners who build those houses, who
want those houses, who are going to pay for those houses, they're going to live in
those houses, will decide. The design of the houses like this with garages
forward is a nation-wide phenomenon. Any of you who travel have probably
seen these in other communities. Nothing unique to Iowa City, and there's a
reason for that. Building those sorts of houses is very cost effective. The most
expensive space you can build is one story on a foundation. Here there's living
quarters up above that garage. Now it may seem simple to say just push that
back or bring the other part forward, but you have to remember you have to get
stairs up to the upstairs. There's rooms placed very carefully in these houses.
The idea is to get the maximum square footage for the least cost per square foot.
Now, what this is really all about is keeping choices open because ~vhat the staff
is proposing is you restrict the choices that builders and homeowners have when
they build houses in a subdivision, and it's largely based on a matter of aesthetics
and appearance, and the ability to control what is built. We sat in staff meetings
and we had disputes where they say it's not about aesthetics, it's about
pedestrian-oriented neighborhood, it's about people feeling safer on the street,
it's about being able to look in people's windows and see interesting human
activity. I've heard all the justifications, but when you come down to it it's really
a matter of do you like how it looks or do you not like how it looks, and who is
going to make that decision. Actually in looking at these through repetitive
nature of those garages, maybe something that appeals to some people. I thought
about this, I spent several hours this summer waking on the streets of San
Francisco where the street-scape is dominated by garages. Uphills, downhills,
garages. Who says that a different design is more pedestrian-friendly. That's
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 9
one of those great unknowables, and unponderables that we can't prove or
disprove.
Lehman: Joe, I want you to hold that thought, and I'm going to give you a chance to get
back up and finish. Is that okay? We do, I have been criticized frequently for
people going over the five minutes, you certainly may have another five minutes.
Can you hold that thought and come back?
Holland: I'1I hold that thought, but I'd like to make a comment about that. Last night's
staff presentation was about twenty-five minutes. They do the same thing in
front of the Zoning Commission. They get a long block of time. We have the
burden of proof here, it seems to me. We get little five minute increments. I'll
hold my peace, but I think you need to look at that in terms of the fundamental
fairness to people who are trying to make a presentation.
Lehman: You're making a good point. I don't disagree with that.
Holland: I feel disadvantaged coming in, and I feel more disadvantaged by not having the
time it takes to try and explain someone's position on this. That being said, I
understand the rules and I'll take my, 1'11 mark my place on my notes and come
back to that.
Lehman: Thank you, Joe. Anyone else wish to speak to this issue?
Dawes: Hi, my name is Karen Dawes. I live at 1055 Briar Drive, which is in the
Pepperwood neighborhood, which is adjacent to this proposed new development.
I'm also the President of the Board of Directors for the Concerned Citizens for
Sand Prairie Preservation, which is a group that's dedicated considerable time
and effort towards the preservation of the rare sand prairie that's located on the
property to be developed. I'd like to express my appreciation to all the many
people who have devoted several years of their time and skills from the
neighborhood, from the community at large, City employees and from Southgate
Development Corporation. Many people have spent a great deal of time working
hard to see that this development is a very nice, new development, and a good
place to live. I'd like to also thank the Council. Some of you have been on the
Council that had the vision to direct how future development in Iowa City should
proceed. I'm here tonight to appeal to you to uphold your vision, which includes
both the comprehensive plan and south district plan. I think that you need to
remember a lot of citizen input went into that, and is reflected in these plans, as
well as current, professional City planning concepts. This neighborhood is very
large, both in acreage and numbers of lots, and it will have an enormous impact
on my neighborhood, on the south district, and upon all of Iowa City. It's going
to be hem for very many years, and I think it's very important that it be well
designed, that it's attractive, that it's affordable, that it meets a lot of the goals
that are already in the comprehensive plan. I think there's obviously a lot of
disagreement about housing design and whether or not that is very important. I
think it is important. It has a lot to do with how a neighborhood looks, and
whether people want to live there or not. I think people ought to be offered
choices in the kind of house they live in. If you just tell them there's just one
design and this is what you have to live in, I think that's kind of presumptuous, I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 10
guess, to put it nicely. In any case, I think this is a conservation subdivision, it is
a planned development, and when you talk about planned developments, it's very
important that you put all the pieces that need to be there together. You can't
leave something out. It doesn't work very well. All the pieces need to work
together, so I would appeal to you to let that happen, and let the people who've
really spent a lot of time thinking about this and studying that, and who have that
kind of knowledge, guide and direct that this happen. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Quigley: Hi, my name is Jim Quigley and 1 live at 915 Pepper Drive so l'm also in the
Pepperwood neighborhood, and my house will be facing the new neighborhood.
I'm pretty excited about the development. I think it's going to be an asset to
Iowa City, but I think part of making that an asset to Iowa City is to make the
development consistent with the south district plan, and I'm just going to be very
brief. One of the things the south district plan states is that as housing density
increases and as lot sizes are reduced, attention will need to be paid to design
issues such as garages and driveway locations to assure that the new
neighborhoods are attractive and livable. I think we need to look at that. There
may be some disagreements about you know exactly how to do it, but I think the
City Council should take what the Planning and Zoning has already worked on
and go from there. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Nelson: I'm Steven Nelson. I live at 1033 Sandusky Drive in the Pepperwood Addition.
I belong to the same groups that my neighbors who just spoke belong to.
Comments on the proposed rezoning subdivision, um, I think it's important to
keep the south district plan in mind as we consider this development. Like
they've stated, a lot of thought has gone into it. Joe Holland alluded to the fact
that the 18 acres of sand prairie are a gift to the City. I always counter with the
south district plan initially showed almost the whole sand prairie area as open
space, so the allowance of houses on that prairie I think is a gift to Southgate, just
to put it in a different perspective, how we all come from. Um, why is housing
design standards important? Um, as housing sizes decrease and you get more
and more houses, we're envisioning the worst-case scenario of the "snout
houses". I call 'em, excuse, because of the reputation of the neighborhood, bullet
nose shotgun houses. Excuse me for that inference, but that's what I want to
prevent. As we get houses with garages in front, very little of living space facing
the street, you end up with houses that no one is looking at the street. You do not
notice your neighbors. It becomes a very closed neighborhood, and no one is
aware of what's going on, and that is a type of housing we don't want to see in
the south district. I think as we require housing, the garage set backs, to the front
of the house, people will be looking out their kitchen window or dining room
window or living room window, at the street. They will see their neighbors.
They will see what's going on. It will be a much more friendly community. As
garages predominate, the amount of driveway space in front of the house
becomes important. The south district talks about a very pedestrian corrmaunity,
very pedestrian neighborhood. With more and more driveway up front, you
spend more and more of your time walking across driveways, which is not the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 11
safest place to be walking when you're a pedestrian. You'd rather be walking
along a front yard and not in the driveway. As driveways predominate, the
amount of parking on the street gets decreased and in some cases, impossible.
We are envisioning the preserved sand prairie there. We hope there's a lot of
visitors. There will be needs for on-street parking. Not everyone can park in the
driveway. So design standards, type of houses, become important. So I think to
create a stable neighborhood, we need to consider the design things. Joe Holland
mentioned this has been a long process, three years that started with the proposed
student housing, their thing. Randall Arendt got involved. He made a conceptual
plan, but what they don't tell you about, is the rest of Randall Arendt. He's a
very strong proponent of design standards for neighborhoods. He presents
examples of attractive houses that do not have protruding garages. He gives
examples of house designs that meet his criteria, and talks very strongly against
the snout nosed house. If he were here tonight, he would be speaking for design
standards. They are giving you half the equation with his concept street layout,
but they are not giving you his most ardent arguments for design standards,
which he firmly advocates in all his articles.
Lehman: You need to...
Nelson: Finally, okay one last thing, an issue you're fighting here, refers to Portland,
Oregon, where this very fight came up, and I don't know if you have a copy of
this article from February 2001 Zoning News, and it's abstracted from a 1999
PIS report. I'm not sure what that is. At first it was a fight. Builders generally
didn't like the idea about garages that dominate housing design, but
neighborhood advocates did. The Planning Commission recommended a
proposal to the City Council but debate continued. Some Portland, Oregon, City
Council members worried about the intrusion of government into matters of taste.
Eventually, however, they lined up unanimously behind a proposed ordinance to
ban what became known as "snout houses". I challenge you to be as progressive
in planning the future of Iowa City that when we build lots below standard city
lot sizes, and seventy, eighty percent of these lots do not meet City standards,
that we have some other standards in place to maintain the integrity of the
neighborhood, and a place where people would feel welcome to live for a long
time. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Lathrop: My name is Louana Lathrop. I'm a real estate broker here in lowa City. I've
been in the business since 1984. I have worked on a variety of subdivisions for
many entities, and three of them were where I represented Southgate and several
of their business partners. In these subdivisions we have built several different
styles of home, where the public had a choice of the style they wanted from the
plans submitted by the developer. Typically these plans that they got to select
were from six to eight different designs, not one. The buyer then would buy a
project as a total project. It would be the house on whichever lot that they
selected. In the Walden subdivision that was on the west side of Iowa City, in
the phases that I was involved in, we sold 78 homes in four and a half years. Ali
parties involved in this subdivision loved their homes, and they were so excited
about living in a subdivision and what they represented. They felt they were
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 12
great homes for growing families, in a great place to experience the American
dream. I have several photos of these plans if you would like to look at them.
Notice that these homes usually did not have side windows, and the garages were
set out in front of the houses. I refuse to use the word that people use here
tonight. I think we live in America, and I can't believe that people are arguing
over names of houses. These are homes that people have loved. These are
homes that people saved a ton of money to buy, and they love these homes. They
love this neighborhood that they live in, and they have neighborhood parties.
You'll notice that those houses, as I said before, do not have windows on the
side, and you know that the buyer likes that? Because they remember growing
up in a house where the neighbor could see into the kitchen window, or into the
bedroom window. They like the fact that on the side of the house, no one's
sitting there staring in at them. They also loved these homes because the
majority of the area that the family used was in the backyard. The backyard
where the kids play. The backyard where the screen porch was. The backyard
where they could have their family barbeques. They get together as groups.
They know their neighbors through the backyard and through the kids, and
everybody else playing together. There are memories made here. There are
American dreams made here. Nobody cares about their garage. Nobody cares
that the garage sticks out six feet farther than the neighbors next to them. They
are creating a family experience in these neighborhoods. Another interesting fact
about this neighborhood is that when homes come up for resale there, they sell
quickly. Very quickly. There are buyers waiting to move into these homes.
They can't wait to achieve the American dream that everyone else has, and they
don't care what the garage looks like or how far it sticks out. In fact, some of
them have double offers on them when they come up for sale. I would find, ifl
went through several neighborhoods, and ask them would you describe your
house as attractive and livable, there wouldn't be one that would say "no, I live in
an ugly home; I can't believe I bought here." In fact the Mayor's son bought in
one ofthe neighborhoods of Southgate's, and he loved his home. He came to the
closing and said thank you. I'm appreciative of this. And he didn't care that he
only had six plans to pick from. I know that people take their homes personally,
and I know that people take their neighborhoods personally, but you have to
remember that these homes that are created that you are now calling a name,
have people living in them also, and they love where they live, and they have
spent good money to live there. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Moore: Hi, my name is Dave Moore. 1 live at 425 Davenport Street. You'll have to
pardon my appearance. I've got this epoxy all over my hands. I can't get that
off. Anyway, I think the last time I was up here was when the student housing
apartments were being proposed for part of this land that is up for rezoning now,
and I want to say once again that this new proposal is part of kind of a south
corridor into town. It's in an area that's unique to Iowa City environmentally and
historically. I hope that all of you can take the time in the next few weeks to read
pages 2 and 3 of the south district plan, which focuses on the history of the area.
The area along Sand Road, as most of you know I'm sure, is about the only place
left a person can drive to in about five minutes, and feel like they're in rural
Iowa. And it's an area that's full of recreational potential. On the surface it sort
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 13
of seems like we've arrived at a place of two choices. You either go along with
Planning and Zoning's concepts for the garages, or you go along with
Southgate's. Southgate's, I prefer Planning and Zoning's concept based on this
paragraph from page 7 of your south district plan, which says that as housing
density increases and lot sizes are reduced, attention will need to be paid to
design issues, such as garage and driveway locations to assure the new
neighborhoods are attractive and livable. However, I believe that there is a
better, third option, and that is to deny the rezoning based on this paragraph from
page 8, and the paragraph reads: a conservation, and this is under the section of
parks and open spaces and it's the same area that Steve referred to actually,
conservation area that provides protection for a threatened species of turtle,
perched wetlands on a sandy knoll, archeological and prairie relicts should be
considered on the McCollister property. Much of the land that is referred to at
this time, in this paragraph, is now part of Southgate's proposal. This stuff that
they refer to as McCollister land is now Southgate land, I believe, and I hope that
you all can take time in the next week or two and look at the future land use
scenario page, it's the one with the colored Xerox, and you'll see that there's this
one area called other open space, it's dark green, it's right here. It's about twice
the size of Wetherby Park and it's about double the size of the sand prairie, and
to me when you're looking at such a special and unique part of our community,
that's a big, big difference, and one that I think you should bear in mind if you
consider a third option of just turning down the rezoning. And there's one other
situation I hope you can consider and that's the south district plan has many
references to the desirability one day of acquiring the quarry ponds for public
space. Like most people ! thought this possibility was ten or twenty years out.
Some people I've talked with on the Planning and Zoning Commission thought
the same thing. A month or so ago I stopped at the quarries and spoke with the
general manager. He said that that quarry will be, both quarries will be, mined
out this spring and on the market in about two years, and the question arises in
my mind, would we have amved at this point if that knowledge had been part of
the dialogue about this overall area. I know that Dee Vanderhoef has been
interested in how Ames has made their quarries into assets for the community,
and so I wonder when it comes time for the City to look at exciting possibilities
for those quarries, are they really going to want such a large and dense housing
development right across the street, and when I talk about that I'm talking about
pretty much right along Sand Road there. That's the area that I'm concerned
about. So, I think bearing in mind the special qualities this area, I think that even
at this late date it might be time just to step back just a bit, and I hope that in the
coming ~veeks as you discuss this issue, and I'm assuming you're probably going
to drive around the area a little bit. I hope that you can imagine other
possibilities and that you revisit the south district plans, ideas about parks and
open spaces, and that you consider turning it down in favor of some less dense
use of the land, particularly the land along Sand Road there, between Sand Road
and the ridge. Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you.
Shrader: Hello. Sorry ! don't have a sticker either. I'm Robyn Shrader. I'm actually from
the Weeber Harlocke neighborhood. ! don't live in the south district but I'm here
tonight to speak in favor of neighborhoods, and the principles of neighborhoods
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 14
sustainability that are articulated in the Iowa City comprehensive plan. I'm sure
you're quite familiar with the concepts outlined in the section of the plan entitled
"The Community of Neighborhoods", it's about pages 19 to 25 or so, and they
specifically address issues like the one before you tonight. I applaud all the
parties involved for so many compromises over the last couple of years, that have
led to a much better solution to the inevitable growth that needs to happen in the
south district. I'm not moved by the argument that the developer has had to work
hard to do so because that's the business that they're in, but I'm here to advocate
for the comprehensive plan, and its principles, because citizens throughout Iowa
City are depending on judicious implementation of that plan as part of a credible
public process. This city has demonstrated a commitment to strong citizen input
in developing the comprehensive plan and its components, and it's time to stand
behind the expectations and the outcomes articulated within its pages. If you
ignore the very specific guidelines in the plan about the treatment of garages, and
their impact on sustainable and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with this
development, you'll be asked to do it over and over and over again, and a
community of neighborhoods becomes moot. If people didn't care about their
garages, it wouldn't be articulated in the plan they way that it is which was result
of considerable public input. If you bow to the desires of a developer over the
principles adopted by the City and its citizens through a strong public process,
you send a message that participating in that process is a waste of time, and
you'll send a message that the vision for Iowa City encompassed in this
comprehensive plan is just a brochure and it's not a living intent that citizens in
this community can rely upon as our community grows. So I urge you to stand
behind the plan, stand behind the principles in the plan, and uphold the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you.
Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm kind of at a loss. I don't know whether to pick up
where I left off or jump ahead and address some of the comments that other
people have expressed. But I think I'll pick up where I left off which was talking
about the fundamental justification for this idea that you should prohibit this type
of design because I think it does play into issues relating to the south district
plan, the comprehensive plan. As I said earlier, I've heard a variety of
justifications for why you don't want houses of this desire. Excuse me, why you
don't desire houses of this design. Everybody says it's not a pedestrian friendly
neighborhood but I've never seen or heard any real explanation of why it's not as
pedestrian friendly, except that people like to look in other people's windows
when they walk past houses, that they don't like to look at garage doors. But
there's an inverse to that. There's the people who live in those houses. As Miss
Lathrop said, people like privacy. Those garages in the front of the house
provide privacy, and you're making a judgment when you impose these sorts of
restrictions that the value of people being able to walk by and look in those
windows is of more value than the privacy of the people in those houses. This is
a very value loaded set of judgments dealing with restrictions on design, and it's
not something to be undertaken lightly in terms of imposing those restrictions.
Both the south district plan and the comprehensive plan are documents that paint
with a broad brush, and I'll guarantee you just as Mr. Moore did, I can go
through the south district plan and pick out design elements that have been
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 15
incorporated into this subdivision. There's something for everybody in both
those documents, and you have to look at it as a whole, not take little snippets out
about garage design. Little snippets about recreation area, but think about what
the neighborhood as a whole is going to develop into. That's part of the mason 1
included those photographs about what a maturing neighborhood might look like.
One of the concepts is to look with a sense of vision five, ten, twenty years down
the road, you can drive through neighborhoods where there's not a tree larger
than I could put my hand around, and yes, they look sterile. They don't look
inviting. Every neighborhood looked that way at one time. I lived out on Rundle
Street in southeast Iowa City for a number of years in what now you would call a
snout house because the garage stuck out in front of the house. A number of
houses in that neighborhood were built that way. Today those are viewed as
architectural gems. In fact, part of the Moffitt houses in that area are in an
historic district. The judgments we make today can be short-sided if we don't
look at that bigger, broader picture. Perhaps the best way to allow decisions to
be made about what is to be built there (tape ends) ...this house, cookie-cutter on
lot after lot after lot. What we're saying is let people choose what's going to be
built. There probably will be diversity in housing in these neighborhoods simply
because of those choices that people make. The comments about Randall Arendt
trouble me some because he did write a letter to the City planning staff in support
of the design of this project. He does favor a variety of housing in subdivisions.
You can read his entire book, not a few pictures that can be held up in front of
you. He has garage design where the garages protrude out in front of the house.
He has garage designs where the garages are in back of the house. His concept is
a mixed-design subdivision. He doesn't necessarily favor one type of
construction over another. I do want to make a couple comments about
compliance with the south district plan. This does maximize open space. When
you add all this up, I think there's about twenty eight acres total of open space in
this proposed design, between what's in the storm water detention basins which
kind of ring this subdivision, plus those eighteen acres of prairie, that's
something on the order of five, seven times what is required by your City
ordinance. I realize to some people, some is never enough, but this goes well
beyond those minimums which the City itself has set as a design standard. So
when you look at those comprehensive plans and the south district plans, you can
look at the open space ordinance and say here's something that came out of the
open space ordinance. If you'll look at that conditional zoning agreement, there
are essentially four components to it that staff suggest that Southgate agree to.
One is in the design of the townhouses. When you talk about these, when you
quote out of the south district plan about attention being paid to garages and
building facades, those townhouses are a classic example of where that's
happened. No you can't make everything, every lot, every building, every street
in this subdivision conform to an ideal, but you can in parts of it here and there,
and as a whole, incorporate the best out o£the south district plan. This project
has been the product of many, many compromises over a long period of time. I
guess all we're really asking for is to take that one provision out of the
conditional zoning agreement, which is, I think, a compromise on the part of the
City. I'll wind up in just a minute, but I have to say that what you do with this
has implications well beyond this subdivision. You're going to see these design
restrictions city-wide in a new proposed zoning ordinance. They're going to
apply to every lot in the city, some of these, in terms of what can be on a building
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 16
front. And it doesn't matter, according to what I heard today, if that building
front can be seen by the street. If you have a hundred foot driveway that goes
over the hill, the street facing facade on that house still cannot have more than
fifty percent of the front of the house, from the side of the house, be your garage.
So the approach you take on this is going to send a message to a variety of
people. It's going to send a message to your staffas to what you see as the vision
for design. It's going to send a message to the building community in Iowa City
as where you see design city-wide heading. It's going to send a message to
developers like Southgate about the effects of compromising and somebody
always wants a little more. Another restriction imposed. And where do you
draw the line. So I think as you look at this, again back to this broad brush
concept, you're not looking at one subdivision. You're not looking at the south
district plan. You're not looking at the comprehensive plan. You're looking
what in this particular setting is good for the city, and I don't think that the city is
any way harmed. In fact I think it's benefited by freeing up those choices and
knocking that paragraph out of the conditional zoning agreement, and that's all
we're asking you to do, is take that one condition out of that zoning agreement.
That done, we're ready to sign as soon as you would approve this. If you have
any questions, I'll be happy to try and address those too.
Lehman: I have one question. I shouldn't ask. Do you know what the set-backs are in that
zone for these homes?
Holland: They vary from lot to lot, typically they're twenty feet.
Lehman: Twenty?
Holland: Twenty, mid I'm glad you asked that question because you can always move a
house back farther if you have the room, as some of these are deep lots. You can
put the front line of the building, the front line of that garage, at that twenty foot
set-back.
Lehman: Okay. Thank you, Joe.
Champion: I just want to clarify a question too because you know we keep talking in general
terms. The garage requirement is only on the lot about what size?
Holland: Lots of less than sixty feet.
Champion: Lots of less than sixty feet.
Holland: In this particular subdivision.
Champion: So it's not just the whole development that has to be guided by this garage
standard, isn't that correct?
Holland: That's correct, although those lots make up a significant, very significant part of
the development because they're, some of those lots are for townhouse units
which will access offan alley in the back. The small minority, minority of the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 17
lots are the actual sixty foot RS-5 lots, so these probably comprise the bulk of the
effect.
Champion: And you could still build over the garage if you put some kind of a porch, a six
foot porch, to tie the garage in with the house. Isn't that correct?
Holland: That's correct.
Champion: Okay.
Holland: Every time you do something like that, you add a building cost. You'd think a
little porch wouldn't be a big-ticket item. Remember that porch has to have a
roof over it. It has to have a structure...
Champion: I just rebuilt my porch last year. I know exactly what's involved (laughter).
Holland: So you know exactly what I'm talking about. A little porch could be a $10,000
project, and when you add that on to the cost of a new building, those
homeowners that are looking for affordable housing, all of a sudden the price tag
went up by $10,000. It's easy to say make a little design tweak here and there
without realizing what it costs. I had the same experience. I did some
remodeling and it's amazing how fast you can spend 2, 5, $10,000. When you
make those incremental changes into housing, it's the consumer who pays those,
and ifI can make one last comment. Southgate is not going to build on every lot
in this subdivision. These lots are going to be sold on the open market.
Southgate has a construction company who will build on some. There are other
people who have expressed interest in as many as twenty lots, if this subdivision
is approved. So, you're not just affecting one company by doing this. It's all the
people, all the builders, all the homeowners, who are the ultimate purchasers in
this area.
Vanderhoef: I have a question. We keep hearing this word affordability, and that means a lot
of different things to different people. Could you give me the range of the typical
house? I...
Holland: I think probably Miss Lathrop would be better able to do that. The development
she is talking about in Walden Woods over on the west side of Iowa City, the
staff has singled those out as representative of what they find unappealing about
this and she was referring to those houses, and she could probably tell you better
what the range of housing prices were. Affordability, like you say, is a relative
market. There's the very bottom entry level, and as you get more middle class
that goes up, but maybe she can answer your question.
Lathrop: They were like $139,900, up to about $200,000.
Vanderhoefi Okay. Even on the thirty, well you don't have thirty-foot lots there.
Lathrop: No.
Holland: Well there are thirty-foot lots. Those are going to be townhouses though.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 18
Lathrop: (can't hear - not at mic)...have garages in the back.
Karr: Ernie, we're going to have to have people at the mic.
Lehman: Yeah, yeah, if we're going to...do you have any other questions for her?
Vanderhoef: I just wanted to let you know what I'm thinking about is just we're looking at
some other things about affordability and so forth in the south area and within
school districts, and so forth, so I was curious as to the range, particularly the
lower range.
Holland: If you'd like Miss Lathrop to address that I'm sure she can, and what's the
difference between the low end and the high end of the range.
Lathrop: I guess I don't understand.
Lehman: We really need you to speak into the mic.
Lathrop: I don't understand exactly what your question...
Vanderhoef: You know, are we talking about some units selling for $80,000?
Wilburn: I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Dee, but part of the argument that is being used
to, in favor of your position, is that if this design standard is paid attention to and
required, then the houses are going to be unaffordable. So, the question is, are
these houses affordable? I think that's a...
O'Donnell: No, not unaffordable, more expensive.
Lathrop: Will the houses be more expensive if you change the garages? Yes.
Vanderhoef: But I'm real specific in wanting to know what the pricing range is for the
smallest unit, least expensive unit, and how many we might be looking at.
Lehman: Is that, I mean, are you asking that relative to what the increase in cost would be
by requiring the garage set-back?
Champion: Or a porch. It could be either one.
Vanderhoef: It's partly that, and it's partly the business of the lower priced housing in the
south district.
Siders: My name is Glenn Siders. I'm with Southgate Companies, the applicant for this
proposal. Dee, to answer your question, we don't know. To be honest, every
time we do another survey, or an analysis, or plat or something, the price keeps
going up. We can't tell you. We can't give you the price range of a home
because we don't know what our development costs for this particular project
are. Our costs for this project are higher than normal, simply because of all the
things that have happened with this particular piece of property, but what we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 19
have tried to do to comply with the south district plan, is we still intend on
building some of those smaller townhome lots. They're the same home that the
City bought, I think they bought, I think they bought like four or five lots when
we did them on the west side over there, for affordable housing purposes. I don't
know what the price range of those are going to be. As you can see in the
conditional zoning agreement, the City wants, has a desire to review those and I
know they have a desire, the same as we do, to vary the looks so they aren't all
just cookie-cutter looks and varied roof lines and all that sort of thing. In
Walden, those particular units sold for about $115,000. That was, five years
ago? Five years ago. These are going to be a little bit larger because one of the
things we're thinking about doing is taking living quarters above the garage on
these particular, and these lots are just a little bit wider than what's on the west
side, to allow us a little more design variation.
Vanderhoefi Okay, that's good for comparison.
Siders: So I don't have an exact price.
Vanderhoef: No, that's enough. That puts me in the ballpark.
Siders: And ifI could address the question you had, Connie. Yeah, you can build your
garage out if it's tied in with a porch, but one of the problem we have with the
limitations the way this design standard is laid out, is you don't have an option.
You stick it out six feet or nothing. You can't stick it out four feet. It's got to be
six feet. There's no in between, and it can't be farther than six feet. That's just
the way the ordinance is drafted.
Lehman: Thank you, Glenn.
Vanderhoef: Thank you.
Franklin: I'm sorry, but I need to correct that. I think that is a misunderstanding. It is that
it can be no more than six feet out, but you could have a four foot extension.
That's the way it should be written.
Siders: Well, once again we disagree (laughter).
Franklin: I'm glad some things never change.
Siders: I don't have that ordinance in front of me, but what I was, but it does say no more
than six feet, but then it goes on the dimension requirements, you can have no
dimension less than six feet.
Franklin: For the porch.
Siders: Which establishes, if you read that carefully, it establishes how you can have the
depth.
Franklin: I bet we could compromise on that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 20
Siders: Okay.
O'Donnell: We're not interfering here, are we? (laughter)
Lehman: Okay.
Klockau: Are we having fun yet? Good. Good evening folks, I'm Dave Klockau. I live at
1031 Briar. I've been before the Board before. I know we've got some new
members here, and I know it's like walking in in the middle of a movie. There's
some stuff that has been said at other meetings before. I want to bring up
something that hasn't been said so far. There's been some very good points
made on both sides. As far as architecture, it's personal. Like music, like
fashion - I mean we can look back in the seventies, we can look at some of our
past Council member's fashions, and go "what were they thinking"? (laughter)
But I'm not going to criticize any type of architecture. That's a personal thing.
The point I want to make here, and I'll be very brief on it, is that a lot of folks
have worked very hard. A lot of different factions -- Southgate, folks from
organized groups, folks from the general community -- to try and help this
development be something special, and one of the things that I think is still real
important to keep sight of is that this prairie area doesn't just become a captive
green space. I certainly don't want to think that it was just something that was
thrown out to appease everyone. I feel it's a community asset, and it should be
viewable, and it should be accessible, and since we've covered a lot of other
topics, I just want to make that point to Council, and everyone here. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Dave.
O'Donnell: Ernie, are we going to continue this hearing?
Champion: Yes.
Lehman: We will continue the hearing. Is that....it is 8:00...is that your wish to move that
we continue the hearing?
O'Donnell: Well I...it was my understanding last night that we were going to continue this to
the next meeting.
Lehman: We are going to do that. Glenn?
Siders: I just want to make a couple of closing comments. This has been a long haul.
Champion: Did you expect it not to be?
Siders: I didn't expect it to be this long (laughter). It's been a long haul. We need to
move forward. I would ask the Council, obviously I'm going to ask the Council
to look favorably upon our request, but time is of the essence. We have just met
one set back after another, after another. I know to conform to City policy, it
would be the desire to, I believe, continue this hearing so you can meet with
Planning and Zoning Commission. I would ask that you try to set up that
meeting as quickly as you possibly can. Believe it or not, the construction season
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 21
is around the corner even though it's below zero outside. We would like some
spring construction. We still have the final platting process to go through. We
have three readings in this process to go through. So I would ask that the
Council move forward expeditiously so we can bring this thing to a resolve.
Lehman: That's reasonable. Whenever we have a, the possibility or probability or
whatever of the Council having a different opinion than Planning and Zoning
Commission, by our old rules we are required to meet with the Planning and
Zoning Commission. In this issue, having heard what we have heard tonight and
what was discussed last night, and from visiting with Council people, it occurs to
me that there may be some disagreement with Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation to Council, and that it would be appropriate that
we schedule a meeting with them. In which case ~ve cannot conclude the public
hearing until after we schedule that meeting, and I would certainly be amenable
to having that meeting prior, with Planning and Zoning, prior to our next regular
meeting if possible. Perhaps even the same evening as the meeting, a half hour
earlier or so.
Karr: We certainly can look at that. I'm just reminding you that that happens to be a
combined work session and formal meeting on Tuesday night.
Lehman: Well, we will try to work out something where we can be as accommodating as
we can. ls there a motion to continue the public hearing? I'm sorry.
Berkowitz: Excuse me. I would like to speak.
Lehman: Okay, Holly, make it quick.
Berko~vitz: All right. Holly Berkowitz. 612 Granada Court. Again ! come to you reminding
you of the value of...
O'Donnell: I'm not hearing Holly.
Berkowitz: I come to you to remind you of the value of the land, that is often undervalued, in
our economy. That is the natural productivity value of the land, where as the
cash flow is usually valued more, and the value of the life on the land. So I urge
you to, and thank you for any consideration you may give to natural habitat.
Lehman: Thank you, Holly.
O'Donnell: Thank you.
Elliott: You want a motion to continue this to the next?
Lehman: Yes.
Elliott: I would move that we do continue it.
Lehman: Okay, moved by Elliott.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5a Page 22
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Champion to continue to the next meeting. All in favor? Opposed?
Motion carries.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Lehman: We have a motion to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion
carries. As Joe alluded to, there is going to be a possibility of Council folks
going on a tour. I personally would not have any problem whatsoever if
someone from Southgate were to accompany Council folks on that tour. I don't
think that's an unreasonable request.
Dilkes: Well if there's four of you on the tour, it'll be a public meeting.
Lehman: It'll be a public meeting, you'll know when the tour is, if you wish to join the
tour you certainly may. Okay? And that is being set up by, I believe, Karin is
setting that up and the schedule will be published and everybody will know. So,
that will occur. We will meet with Planning and Zoning, and then next we will
try to continue the public hearing at the next meeting. Do we have a motion to
defer...we need a motion to defer the first consideration as welI?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell to defer first consideration. All
in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5b Page 23
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
b. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 16.1 ACRES FROM
RESIDENTIAL FACTORY BUILT HOUSING RESIDENTIAL
(RFBH) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING
OVERLAY-12 (OPDH-12) AND AN OPDH PLAN FOR
PROPERTY ON HEINZ ROAD. (REZ03-00024)
(1) Public Hearing
Lehman: Public hearing is open.
S. Gordon: Good evening. I'm Steve Gordon. I work with AM Management who is the
management company for the Saddlebrook development out on the southeast side
of Iowa City. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. The, I believe,
the staff reports does a good job in detailing our development idea for Heinz
Road. When we started working on this plan with staff, we really had several
goals in mind. First one was to diversify the housing along Heinz Road, trying to
increase the kinds of affordable housing we have. One of the goals of
Saddlebrook is to provide quality, affordable housing for lots of different people
and their different needs, and so we felt this was a way to allow that to happen.
We have really four basic housing types out there now, and this added several
other ones that we didn't have before. And so we feel that this plan does that.
We also wanted to improve the street-scape along Heinz Road. Heinz Road is a
collector street, and one of the ideas, the original plan had lots of curb cuts and
kind ora look, a lot of garages out front, and so what we're able to do is we're
able to reduce the curb cuts significantly. We're able to reduce the garage-scape
also significantly, and differentiate the architectural styles that you'll see as you
go down Heinz Road, so we felt that was a big improvement. And then thirdly,
we wanted to increase the open space. We were able to add quite a bit of green
space to the area as, from the original plan, and also enhance our trail system
that's out there. We have a large trail system within the development, and we
were able to add to it with this new plan, and connect into that, which will
connect into the city-wide system. We appreciate your consideration of this
request tonight, and as I said, I'm here to answer any questions and would be
happy to do so. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
O'Donnell: Thank you.
R. Gordon: Good evening. I'm Richard Gordon. I'm a resident of Iowa City. I live out at
Saddlebrook community, and we moved in there, oh four years ago I believe it
was. This is all new to me so excuse my nervousness. I'd like you to consider
voting against the rezoning of this, reference to being a financial difficulty or a
financial burden placed on the Saddlebrook Paddock residents. Our community
is a relatively new community. We're in our sixth year, and when we moved into
the Paddock community in Saddlebrook, we were told of Planning and Zoning
was scheduled to do about 285 residential, single-family homes there at
Saddlebrook, in the Paddock. At present we have 143 homes that have been
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5b Page 24
built, and there are currently seven empty lots, and this leaves approximately 135
homes still to be built or placed on lots. Saddlebrook has also added in some
multi-family housing development there, like Triple Crown Condos. They have
168 units. The Main Gate Apartments were added with 72 units. There's 26
Belmont townhomes that have been added or are currently being constructed, in
addition to this new rezoning request, which would add 78 units. When you add
the 78 units, what you're doing is taking away 66 homes under the single-family
residence. Each resident of the Paddock out there pay an association fee of $123
a month, or it's $102, it's all based on whether or not you have cablevision under
their contract or under the cable company. Our association fee goes to pay for
street lights, extended basic cable, insurance, trash removal, property tax, lawn
and grounds, professional fees for taxes preparation, management fees and club
house rental. Each of these different associations out there, Main Gate
Apartments, the Triple Crown, the Belmont townhomes, the Main Gate
Apartments and that Triple Crown condos all pay towards this association, their
own association fee. $25 out of each one of those association fees goes towards
the paying for the clubhouse and the expenses it, goes towards running that part
of it. Currently, of the 143 residents of the Paddock, their association fees for
last year was $204,000, a little over that, and out of that $204,000 that we paid
towards this, each other association has also adds in the $25 to pay for that
clubhouse. But I'm not here to talk about the clubhouse because it's kind ora
joint thing between all the different associations out there. Over the last 42
months period, there, correction, over the first 42 month period of Saddlebrook
Paddock, there were 118 homes sold and then something happened after those 42
months, and the homes at Saddlebrook are just not selling. There's been a kind
of an uproar among the Paddock residents as to why not, and we're still looking
into that and we just really can't put a finger on it, that per se. Saddlebrook, we
had a meeting with Saddlebrook and they started to inform us that they're going
to create this new rezoning and I'm losing thought here. Well, let me go on to
the next thing I had here. We as members of Saddlebrook have recently been
informed of Paddock's intent to rezone lots 4, 6, 7, and 8 of Saddlebrook
Addition, Part Two. Last year the residents of Saddlebrook paid the $204,000 in
community fees. $42,000 went to the clubhouse payments for upkeep, leaving
$161,000 paid by the Paddock people for upkeep. If lots 4, 6, 7, and 8 of the
Paddock is rezoned from RFBH to the RDH-12, it would cause quite a financial
burden on the residents of the Paddock.
Lehman: You need to wind this up if you can, please.
R. Gordon: Yes. We would be losing approximately 66 family homes and the yearly basic
expense that they would have been paid to the Paddock for upkeep. This is
approximately 47% of the, of our possibilities of making or having the money to
support our Paddock instead of taking the 68 homes away from us and losing that
possibility of that income coming into our association for our upkeep. I would
really like you to consider denying this request for rezoning based on that, and if
you have any questions, I'll be glad to visit with you later. Thank you.
O'Donnell: Thanks, Dick.
Lehman: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5b Page 25
Klinzman: My name is Irene Klinzman. We live at 275 Paddock Circle out in Saddlebrook.
We've Iived there, be three years coming this next April, and I think I can put my
finger on why the homes are not selling out there, and that is that the amenities
that were promised to us in order to entice us to move out there, have one by one
been taken away, and therefore the residents no longer encourage their friends or
advertise by way of mouth that it's a wonderful place to live. It is a wonderful
place to live. We have wonderful neighbors. It's quiet. There's wildlife. You
can actually see the stars every night which is a plus in a big city, and I would
just like to mention the one thing that bothers me about this rezoning is the
impact that it's going to have on the traffic pattern out there. Heinz Blvd., Heinz
Road I'm sorry, is one way in and one way out for the Saddlebrook residents, and
you know the number of residents out there already by what Mr. Gordon has
said, both Mr. Gordons by the way. And, when the new road, the new bypass
road, I don't know what the name of it is right now, I assume is anywhere from
five to ten years down the road, which will connect Heinz Road to Highway 1
eventually, Dressage Street is another one that it's supposed to hook up with the
new highway and in the meantime you're going to be adding anywhere from 75
to maybe 150 cars, depending on how many cars each unit has in their
possession, and that's a lot of cars to add to a one way in and a one way out
street. I encourage you to vote against the rezoning. Thank you for your time.
Lehman: Thank you.
Vanderhoef: Karin? Wasn't there a max limit of houses that can be built before there has to
be secondary access?
Franklin: Yeah, 460. We're not there yet.
Vanderhoefi Okay.
Lehman: Anyone else like to speak at the hearing? Hearing is closed. Do we have a
motion for first consideration?
Champion: I have a couple questions.
Lehman: Okay.
Dilkes: Let's get it on the floor.
Lehman: We need a motion.
(2) Consider an Ordinance (First Consideration)
Wilbum: Move first consideration.
Vanderhoefi Second.
Lehman: We have a motion by Wilbum, seconded by Vanderhoef for first consideration.
Now, discussion please.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5b Page 26
Champion: 1 have two questions. When we do this rezoning, we're not really changing the
number of lots that can be built in that land, I mean the number of residences, are
we, Karin? We are?
Franklin: Yeah, there were originally in this section 66 single-family, detached
manufactured units envisioned, and now we're talking about 78 units in a variety
of housing types, duplex, apartment, and townhouse.
Champion: So we're talking about twelve?
Franklin: Twelve more units, yes.
O'Donnell: Multi-family.
Champion: Right.
Franklin: Not necessarily multi-family. It may be in the townhouses or duplexes.
Champion: The other question is, the gentleman who spoke about the fees for the clubhouse,
when those were established for that neighborhood, were they established for the
number of people that are living there or the number of possibilities?
Franklin: I would have to refer that to Steve Gordon because we do not get involved in the
associations or the fees.
Champion: Steve, can you answer that for me?
S. Gordon: Yes. The $25 fee was established a long time ago at the beginning of the
development. It, to this date, has not yet covered the expenses of building the
clubhouse, paying the mortgage on it, the upkeep, that sort of thing. Eventually
when Saddlebrook is full, it will, but it does not yet. So it was established early.
Champion: So it wasn't based on the expenses by the number of people living there. It was
just based on a monthly fee?
S. Gordon: Right, it's not the current expenses divided by the number of people there. It
does not yet cover that.
Champion: Okay, that's what I wanted to know.
S. Gordon: It's a set fee and it eventually will.
Champion: Okay.
Lehman: That is a fee per unit?
S. Gordon: Right, yeah. All units out there, it's kind of a master association and there's a lot
of common space that all the different areas of Saddlebrook share, including the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5b Page 27
clubhouse is part of it, and they all pay $25 into that to maintain that common
area.
Vanderhoefi So when we're talking about 64 houses or something that could have been built
there, if it's multi-family and there's four in that unit, then there will be four
payments of $25.
S. Gordon: Yes, yeah, all the 78 will pay the $25 into the master association, and each
individual association, what Dick was talking about, each individual association
then has their own association fee for their common area, for their smaller
common area. There are streets in amongst their houses and their street lights,
and maintaining their area. So, for an example, of the $123, $25 of it goes in to
the master association which is the common area that everybody shares, and the
rest of it is the expenses related to their particular area, and the Main Gate
Apartments and Triple Crown Condos and Belmont Townhomes all have their
own individual associations for their individual area, and all of them participate
in the $25 which is mainly the clubhouse area, which is a common area for
everybody.
Vanderhoef: Got it, thank you.
S. Gordon: And the wetlands down below, and the trails down there.
O'Donnell: How will...
Lehman: I don't think...excuse me...go ahead, Mike.
O'Donnell: How will this rezoning change affect traffic patterns? How is it going to affect
the amount of cars?
S. Gordon: It shouldn't affect it much other than there are twelve more units. We own the
land. There is the conditional zoning agreement which limited the number of
units until we had secondary access. Obviously secondary bypass will not occur
from the bypass to the south. That is many years off as Mrs. Klinzman indicated.
We own the land just immediately to the west and currently have site plans in to
staff for review. There will be a connector street into the development from
Lakeside Drive down through Whispering Meadows, and Whispering Prairie
Drive, into which will give us secondary access out to Lakeside Drive which is
really the only access, only way we can do it right now. Obviously once the
parkway is built that will be more access but that'§ you know, not under our
control and many years off.
Lehman: Thank you.
S. Gordon: Thanks.
Lehman: Other discussion on Council? Make this quick because the public hearing is
over. Go ahead. No, no, when we have a public hearing, the time to speak is
during the hearing.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5b Page 28
Sheryl Gordon: Well, I was going to clarify something that I think maybe didn't come out the
first time around. My name is Sheryl Gordon and I live out in Saddlebrook also.
One of our concerns with the rezoning, is the fact that it is going to take away,
and I didn't come prepared so I don't have the exact numbers, but 60-some home
sites, single-family, and what this is going to do, the reason it's going to impact
us is as the development was going to grow, which we hoped it would, there
would be more homes, more people to pay into this pot, and out actual
association fee is divided among the number of homes. If they take away 60
home sites, then there go 60 more houses or 60 more families that would
contribute to keeping our association fee down. One of the things that we asked
is do we have any guarantee that this is going, that this fee isn't going to keep
rising, and our answer was, what we were told was that we would hope not
because the more houses there are, the more people that there are, for this to be
divided among. Well so now we're already going to be losing 60 more potential
families out there that can contribute toward this pot that we have to pay monthly
for the association fee, and so that is one of the main concerns, and I just wanted
to clarify that.
Lehman: I don't know that that is a legitimate issue for Council to consider when we talk
about rezoning, and those are private associations with private fees. We're
looking at land use issues. Would you like to clarify that?
Dilkes: Well that would be my initial reaction to it is that...
Lehman: We're talking density, rezoning...
Dilkes: That we need to talk about whether it's appropriate density, appropriate land use,
and not necessarily the fees.
Lehman: Okay.
Dilkes: There still seems to be a little confusion on the fees, but...
Lehman: Right.
Dilkes: Yeah.
Lehman: Other discussion on Council? Are we ready to vote?
Elliott: So we are voting on the appropriateness...
Lehman: First consideration to rezone. Roll call. Motion carries 6 to 1, O'Donnell voting
the negative.
Elliott: Can I have just a clarification?
Lehman: Yes?
Elliott: That was, we were only voting on the appropriateness of the zoning, and not of
the situation with the, whether there is a situation, with the fees?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5b Page 29
Dilkes: Correct.
Lehman: That's not something that we have any...
Elliot[: Right.
Lehman: All right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5c Page 30
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
c. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 26.98 ACRES FROM
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, CH-l, TO SENSITIVE AREAS
OVERLAY (SAO/CH-1) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST
OF MORMON TREK BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 1. (REZ03-00027)
Lehman: Public hearing is open. Public hearing is closed.
Champion: Move first consideration.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Move by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? You know I suppose
for the benefit of the public, this is the property that, right next to the Ford
garage, south of the extension of Mormon Trek. Is that not correct? Okay.
Discussion? Roll call.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#5d Page 31
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
d. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY
1/3 OF AN ACRE FROM PLANNED ItIGIt-DENSITY MULTI-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PRM) TO SENSITIVE AREAS
OVERLAY PLANNED HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (OSA-PRM) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
512 S. DUBUQUE STREET. (REZ03-00022) (SECOND
CONSIDERATION)
O'Donnell: Move second consideration.
Vanderhoefi Second.
Lehman: Move by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Karr: Mr. Mayor, the applicant has requested expedited action if anyone is interested.
Lehman: Okay, we have the motion and a second withdrawn?
O'Donnell: I withdraw it.
Vanderhoefi Withdraw.
Lehman: Thank you.
O'Donnell: May I move that the rule requiring that the ordinance must be considered and
voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is
to be finally passed by suspended. That the second consideration and vote be
waived, and that the ordinance be voted on for final passage at this time.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second for expedited consideration. Discussion?
Champion: Is this somewhere that's already being built on?
Lehman: Well I think it's an issue over which there's been little or no controversy.
O'Donnell: No controversy.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries.
O'Donnell: I move that the ordinance finally be adopted at this time.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Move by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Roll call. Motion
carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#6 Page 32
ITEM 6. AN AMENDMENT TO THE CY04 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN,
THAT IS A PART OF IOWA CITY'S 2001-2006 CONSOLIDATED
PLAN (CITY STEPS), AS AMENDED, TO ALLOW PRAIRIE
GARDEN IHA LP TO USE FY04 CITY HOME FUNDS TO
ACQUIRE 912-14 2ND AVENUE, IOWA CITY, IOWA.
(1) Public Hearing
Lehman: Public hearing is open.
Wilburn: I will have conflict of interest with this item. It involves the City's
Consolidated Plan, which involves Home and CDBG Funding.
Lehman: Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak at the hearing? Hearing is closed.
Do we have a motion?
(2) Consider a Resolution Approving
O'Donnell: Move the resolution.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Elliott: I will say I'm not in favor of this at 2nd Avenue. I would like scattered
sites and I look forward to our future discussion regarding what scattered
sites means and what it will, and how it will be viewed.
Champion: I'm not in favor because it's replacing units for large families, which
we're in desperate need of for affordable housing for families. So I'm not
going to support this.
Bailey: I'm concerned about the loss of affordable housing units, Connie, but I
like the partnering with successful living.
Champion: I do too.
Bailey: And I do consider this more scattered site because it is in a different area.
Champion: I agree with you.
Bailey: So I will be supporting it.
Champion: I agree with the whole thing she said.
Bailey: Then why don't you support it? (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#6 Page 33
O'Donnell: Do you disagree with everybody? (laughter)
Lehman: We are going to have, I'm sure, an at-length discussion, a much-larger
issue which is scattered sites, and I too will support this for, I think, the
same reasons that Regina has. Is there other discussion?
Vanderhoef: Well, I'm leaning with Connie in that on our City Steps plans for as long
as I've been on Council, we have said we have this huge need for large
family homes, and when we're trading off that for one bedroom
apartments, even though it's supporting another good project, over the last
few years we have done several things to support that group of citizens,
and I would still like them to look a little bit longer for something for large
families. So I'll not support this.
O'Donnell: This was recommended by the Housing and Community Development
Commission so I will support it.
Lehman: Well, in the original application, this was money to acquire the land. This
is for construction, which is a different use as well.
O'Donnell: That's right.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion fails on a 3 to 3 vote. I guess we
should enumerate the three. Vanderhoef, oh, in the negative, Champion in
the negative, Elliott in the negative. Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#7 Page 34
ITEM 7. AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A THREE HUNDRED
TWENTY THREE FOOT LONG PORTION OF THE TWENTY
FOOT WIDE ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN KIRKWOOD
AVENUE AND DIANA STREET IN BLOCK 6, LUCAS ADDITION,
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
Lehman: Public hearing is open. Public hearing is closed. Is there a motion?
Champion: Moved.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Just for the
public information, there is a price established by the City as to the
reasonable value of the property in this case. The folks who have made
the offer to buy the property have made offers that are in accordance with
what the City has determined to be the value. Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#8 Page 35
ITEM 8. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 ENTITLED
"CITY FINANCES, TAXATION AND FEES," CHAPTER 4,
"SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND
PENALTIES"; AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 3, "CITY UTILITIES,"
ARTICLE A, "GENERAL PROVISIONS," SECTION 14-3A-2,
"DEFINITIONS," AND SECTION 14-3A-4, "RATES AND
CHARGES FOR CITY UTILITIES: AND; AMENDING TITLE 14
ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 3,
"CITY UTILITIES, ARTICLE G, STORM WATER COLLECTION,
DISCHARGE AND RUNOFF," TO CREATE A STORMWATER
UTILITY AND ESTABLISH A STORMWATER UTILITY FEE.
(SECOND CONSIDERTION)
Vanderhoef: Move second consideration.
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Bailey. Discussion? (tape ends)
O'Donnell: I will not...1 guess that the last time, 1 understand fully this is a federal mandate.
It's un-funded, but I do not agree with our method of collecting. What I've asked
for is to put Iowa City on a level playing field ~vith the surrounding communities,
and I think there's too many questions here unanswered right now so I will not be
supporting this.
Vanderhoef: Well I will support this this evening. I understand we've had some preliminary
talks with some of the interested persons in the community and that these are
going on. I will consider deferring on a third consideration but I would like this
ready to go. I am going to support some sort of storm water utility so if we can
do some changes in this over the next two to four weeks, that's great. If not, I'm
going to have to go with what we have before us but I'm hoping that we can
work something out with everyone.
Wilburn: I'm going to agree with Dee on this one, and the only addition that I would make,
while it's important to pay attention to being competitive, ! think also it's
important that cities are going to have to come up with alternatives to the
property tax to pay for this type of infrastructure, and so this is a step in that
direction.
O'Donnell: Well, and I do, Ross I don't disagree with you. I, this is a federal mandate but
you know I've suggested we do it on a sliding scale and I think it would be more
appropriate for our city at this time, especially with people collecting in the
municipalities around us, to do a scale rather than... I know a fiat fee is
inappropriate, but I think a sliding scale would be a more appropriate way to do
this, but I disagree on that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#8 Page 36
Wilburn: Uh-huh, and I too would be willing to, since we've got some more, there's been
some more discussions, to be willing to defer on a third, but I'm willing to move
forward on this one tonight.
Lehman: And they all have that opportunity.
Vanderhoef: And I think just for the public's information, right off the bat for the initial set-up
of this according to the mandate and the permitting process, we're talking about a
half million dollars, so this isn't just a little thing, and that doesn't build us
anything at that point. We are just getting into position to start doing then ~vhat
the plan says we must do, so there will be ongoing costs with this over the next,
forever actually, as we build and change our landscape in our communities, so
it's not going to go away, and somehow we need to find this appropriate and
hopefully fair way to charge this back as a service and a free-standing service of
an enterprise fund, just like we have a water fund, we have waste-water fund, we
have refuse funds, and they become self-supporting.
Elliott: I'll be voting against it. I think there are too many unanswered questions
regarding pollutants, what constitutes pollutants, who is responsible for the
pollutants, who should be exempt, who should not be, who is responsible, where
should the money come from. The task must be done but I think this method of
assessing the fees needs very badly to be reviewed, re-evaluated, reorganized,
and done differently.
Champion: Well I'm going to vote for it, but only because I'm hoping there's going to be
some positive changes coming forth, and I know we have to have some kind of
charge and we have to cover it somehow, but if it remains the way it is I probably
won't vote for third consideration, so 1 will vote for second just so we keep
moving.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion passes 5 to 2, Elliott and O'Donnell voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#9 Page 37
ITEM 9. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ENTITLED
"UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE", CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED
"LAND CONTROL AND DEVELOPMENT", ARTICLE C,
ENTITLED "HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGULATIONS", TO
ADD CERTAIN PROVISIONS TO SECTION 4, ENTITLED
"RULES OF THE COMMISSION" AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS
TO SECTION 7, ENTITLED "APPLICATIONS FOR
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS", IN ORDER TO
ALLOW FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A HISTORIC REVIEW
SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS (FIRST
CONSIDERATION)
Champion: Move first consideration.
Elliott: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Elliott. Discussion?
Franklin: Could I just point out, you've got a couple things that were handed out to you
tonight on the ordinance that the Section 2, I believe it is, was inadvertently left
out that amends Section 7 of the code. Do you have that? Okay.
Champion: What does that actually mean, Karin, besides...I haven't read it.
Franklin: What it does is it sets up the process for the subcommittee taking submittals for
certificates of appropriateness and then passing them on to the commission. So
it's, the one section establishes the ability of the commission to form a
subcommittee, and then the other section is the procedures for the subcommittee.
In the bylaws, which is the next item and these are associated, which is why I
bring it up now. There are some very minor changes that have been made in that.
That's going to be referred to the Rules Committee anyway, and we'll discuss
that at the Rules Committee. Some of these are suggestions, Dee, that you have
made to Bob. Thank you.
Lehman: Further discussions? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#10 Page 38
ITEM 10. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BY-LAWS OF
TItE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
Karr: Could we have a motion to refer to the Rules Committee and defer consideration
to the 1/20 meeting?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell to defer. All in favor?
Opposed? Motion cannes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#11 Page 39
ITEM 11. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING TItE CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE ARTIST FOR
DISPLAY OF A SCULPTURE ON THE IOWA'S SCULPTOR'S
SItOWCASE.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Elliott: Is there a cost beyond $500 on this?
Champion: It comes out of the Art Fund though, doesn't it?
Lehman: Yeah, but...l don't know.
Vanderhoefi On this one...
Franklin: This honorarium comes out of the, its...I'll have to give you a number, its old
number is 1214 Account, which is the Operations Account for Public Art, and the
reason it comes out of that as opposed to the Capital Funds for Public Art is
because this is an honorarium for a sculpture's work being in place for a year.
We do not then own that piece. So, we didn't think it was appropriate because
it's not capital, a capital project. Did you get that?
Lehman: Yeah.
Atkins: Bob's question was is it anything beyond the $500.
Franklin: Oh no. I'm sorry.
Atkins: Just for a little bit of history. We had to set up a small administrative account,
postage, things of this nature, and I believe we set it up at like $2,500 so that we
could charge various...that was the intent of the thing.
Franklin: But that's the extent of our expenditure for it.
Atkins: Yes.
Lehman: Okay. Roll call. I think that only passed (laughter).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#12 Page 40
ITEM 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE
ASSIGNMENT OF THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FROM TERRY L. STAMPER
ItOLDINGS~ L.L.C. TO PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT L.L.C. AND
APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PENINSULA
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
Wilburn: Move the resolution.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Elliott: I've had, I think that there are a number of people for whom this project has been
welcomed, they're glad to see it. But I've had some concerns and from what I
know of this, we're heading in the right direction. I like this.
O'Donnell: It certainly appears like it's going to be more inclusive for the builders in the city,
and I think that's what is needed. We have local realtors and I think it's
definitely a step in the right direction.
Bailey: It's more inclusive and I think it cannes out the spirit of the project which I think
is just wonderful.
Wilburn: Someone wants to address the Council.
Knapp: Is there public discussion?
Lehman: We're going to give you...go ahead.
Knapp: Welcome, Bob. Nice to see you. Regenia.
Lehman: You need to give your name first.
Knapp: Urn, the agreement that you had with...
Lehman: Jim, you need to give your name first.
Knapp: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Jim Knapp. Excuse me, 1 don't have a very good memory. I
forgot my name. Um, the ofiginal agreement was with Stamper Corporation, and
I realize that Mr. Stamper is gone but as I understand it from talking with one of
the people in the City office, that nothings changed other than the fact that Mr.
Stamper's moved out. Is that pretty much correct?
Champion: No.
Lehman: No, l don't think that is but go ahead.
Knapp: I guess what l'm asking is, they didn't meet their agreement obviously. They
talked about thirty applications, thirty residences, all this getting done, and it
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#12 Page 41
didn't get done, and now l'm wondering if it didn't get done, what's going to
make it any better just because they change their name and dropped offMr.
Stamper. Don't you think that maybe they should have opened this up and given
opportunities to all the contractors in town to do this?
O'Donnell: It's basically what's being done, Jim.
Knapp: Through them, or through the City? I mean, ifI wanted to build a portion of the
area, would I work through them or work through the City?
O'Donnell: You would have to work through them.
Knapp: l guess then that they're still in control of the situation, right?
Champion: Every developer is in control.
Vanderhoefi They own the land.
Knapp: Well, they don't own all the land. They own incrementally at, don't they, I don't
believe they own the whole peninsula yet.
Vanderhoef: They own Phase I.
Knapp: Pardon?
Vanderhoef: They own Phase I.
Knapp: They own Phase I.
Dilkes: They will own it incrementally if they meet certain performance requirements.
O'Donnell: It's a contract.
Knapp: Well, you know, things change over time. Requirements change over time. I
was just curious because I would like to see all the builders. I took out plans to
build some low-cost housing out there from the Iowa City Housing Fellowship,
and maybe I'm an old dinosaur or something, but I remember when I bought lots
for $4,500 a piece and built houses, and now today those houses are worth
$250,000, $300,000. The land has gone up to $45,000 or $50,000 but the wages
that are paid are still around $8 to $10 an hour, but this is going to be under
Davis-Bacon wages that when they build this section of low-cost housing. How
does anybody believe that they can build low-cost housing under Davis-Bacon
wages and get it aflbrdable? It's not going to work. It's not going to be
affordable. If they're going to require to do it that way, it just doesn't work out.
1 don't know the answer but maybe the City can come up with some way you can
get affordable housing built but you're not going to do it paying $30 an hour for
everybody that's a skilled laborer on the job. You know, that's just impossibility
with the land costs and everything else today. Take for example, ifI want to
build a house I got to spend $50,000 for the lot right off the bat.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#12 Page 42
Dilkes: There's a provision in the agreement at paragraph K regarding affordable
housing.
Knapp: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.
Dilkes: I'm referring to the Council. There's a provision at paragraph K regarding
affordable housing.
Knapp: They're requiring a performance bond. I suspect that this...the last twelve-plex l
built over in Boone, Iowa, was somewhere around a million dollars, a million
four, one million two hundred fifty thousand or something like that without the
land costs so this'Il probably run in that same neighborhood, l just don't see
where that's affordable. I mean it's affordable for some people.
Lehman: Jim, this is not the issue. The issue as I understand it, and Eleanor correct me if
I'm wrong, we had a contract with Mr. Stamper for the development of the
Peninsula project. The ownership of this company, if you will, that Mr. Stamper
contracted with the City, has apparently changed. All we are doing is changing
the names on the contract with, it was formally with Mr. Stamper, having I think
gone through it rather thoroughly.
Knapp: But they didn't meet the requirements...
Lehman: 1 don't think that....no, no. I'm not sure at all that they did not meet
requirements. They did not meet expectations that we had and that they had, but
I don't think in any way, shape or form they were in default on their contract. So
they have a valid contract. We have now agreed to change the names on the
contract. Is that a little too simple?
Dilkes: We have agreed...what you will be doing by this resolution is consenting to the
assignment to the new company that is a group of people, with the addition of
two new members, and without Terry Stamper. We are doing an amendment to
the agreement which, in my view, is...gives the City a better position in terms of
having some performance requirements that we can look at and we have all
agreed on so I think it's a very positive thing and we also understand that there's
a change in approach that the new developers have to be more inclusive with the
community builders and realtors.
Lehman: We have perhaps more strict (can't hear) standards.
Knapp: I don't argue with the fact that it might be better the way it is. What l'm saying
is it is a new corporation regardless of how you look at it. It's a new group. It's
a new, you know, whatever, so as 10ng as it's a new one, why weren't you
dealing with other new ones too?
Lehman: My guess is we had an existing contract that was in effect. Someone else choose
to assume the position of Mr. Stamper, and that was a legal contract, and we are
agreeing to the assignment to the new folks.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#12 Page 43
Knapp: But what I'm saying is there's a point in time. You know, it's like where was the
man when he jumped off the bridge? There's a point of time when you have a
contract, and then you have another contract, but in that interim time there was
nobody, so why didn't you open it up to other developers?
Lehman: There has not been an interim time.
Dilkes: We have not been in a position to open it up to new developers.
Lehman: Right, there hasn't been an interim time.
O' Donnell: And I really think the only one up here that would remember a $4,500 lot in Iowa
City is Ernie. (laughter)
Knapp: Well I'll tell you what, those houses that I built, wiped me out because I sold
them for $70,000 because interest rates were at 20% at the time.
O'Donnell: Right, I remember those houses.
Knapp: They're now worth....l wish I had defaulted. I wish I'd walked away from them.
I wish I would have left them there and stayed in the one on Bolingreen that I had
for $40,000 which is now worth about $240,000, but that... I'm just saying, you
had a point in time. It's like another situation which I won't bring up. You had a
point in time I think when you could have said let's open the place up. Let's try
to promote it. Now the only other way you're going to promote it, and I hate to
give ideas away because I know what happens. It comes back to bite me. Is
work out an agreement with the City of Coralville and...
Lehman: Jim, we are talking about an agreement that we have entered into, or are about to
enter into, with these folks for the development of the Peninsula. It has nothing
to do with $4,500 lots, entering into agreements with Coralville, or building
twelve-plexes in Boone.
Knapp: Do you want to make them sellable? Would you like to...
Lehman: Now, folks, is there any other discussion on this?
Knapp: Mr. Lehman, would you like to see it succeed?
Lehman: Sir, that isn't the issue. Thank you.
Knapp: Would you like to see it succeed out there?
Lehman: If we didn't think we wanted it to succeed, we wouldn't be sitting here talking
about it.
Knapp: And would you like some advice?
Lehman: No. Frankly not right now. Is there any other discussion on the part of the
Council?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#12 Page 44
Elliott: I just repeat. This may not be all we would like it to be. I think it's a good solid
step forward into an area that I think we agree is beneficial.
Lehman: Yeah, I would agree.
Knapp: Well, maybe I could talk to a couple people when you're offto the side...
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#13a Page 45
ITEM 13a. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RATIFYING SETTLEMENT OF A
RATE CASE PENDING BEFORE THE FCC RELATING TO
MEDIACOM'S PROPOSED RATE INCREASE AND ITS
CALCULATIONS RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF A
MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATE FOR BASIC CABLE SERVICE.
Vanderhoef: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second. Dale, is there any, give us a thumbnail sketch of
what we're voting on.
Helling: Right. This...on an annual basis the cable company has the right to apply for a
rate increase of their basic rate, and we have the right to regulate that as far as the
FCC will allow. Annually these papers are filed by the cable company. We
review them by the use of a consultant, and we determine whether or not their
rate for that year is appropriate or not. You'll recall probably several times when
we had some disagreement. All but one of those we were able to resolve it
without going to the FCC. Again, the papers were filed by Mediacom in, I
believe, June or July for the maximum permitted rate that would be in effect
August 1st. We disagreed with that. There were a number of issues that ~vere
negotiated between our consultant, Rice, Williams and Associates, and
Mediacom, and this agreement is a result of that.
Lehman: Okay. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#13b Page 46
ITEM 13b. CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIlE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME) LOCAL 183, AFL-CIO.
Champion: Move the resolution.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? It's a three-
year contract, is that correct, Dale? Right. I think we've had it in our
packet. Is there a discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#16 Page 47
ITEM 16. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIOIN.
Lehman: Mr. Elliott?
Elliott: I wasn't going to say anything about this but I think I should. One of the
people who appeared before the Council tonight referred to the appearance
of homes in a very pejorative nature several times, and I think from my
perspective, you do not gain any friends by doing that. I hope it doesn't
happen again. I don't like people calling other people's houses ugly. I
don't think this is the place, I don't think any place is the place to do that.
Secondly, very personally, if any of you see my wife on the street the next
week, you night offer your condolences because Monday is our 46th
wedding anniversary (laughter).
Lehman: Congratulations!
Vanderhoef: Happy anniversary.
Lehman: Yes! Connie?
Champion: 46 years! Good heavens! She's durable! (laughter)
Elliott: She'll love to hear that!
Champion: Well this was one of the most pleasurable City Council meetings we've
had in a while, and I'd like to welcome the two new Council people.
Elliott: Thank you.
O'Donnell: Is that it? Um, I also would like to welcome Bob and Regenia. This has
been an absolute pleasure. We've waited a long, long time so welcome.
Lehman: Dee?
Vanderhoefi Just one thing. Shortly before Christmas we had an invitation and I had an
opportunity to go and be, shadow a student at West High School, though
an organization that is sponsored with Gary Neuzil and some of the Social
Studies and Government classes. It's very interesting to see those young
people and how they participate and stay up on issues in the city and
further out in government, and I applaud them for their work and their
volunteer time to do these kinds of things and hope they'll do it again
another time. I'd like to go again.
Lehman: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#16 Page 48
Wilburn: I just want to...I've been asked again to teach a Junior Achievement
course at Grant Wood Elementary, and it's a great program teaching
people about their community, and the folks would like to, they always
need folks to do this kind of thing. There's an office in Cedar Rapids and
you'll have to hook up with the Junior Achievement office but it's a real
fun thing to do. It was interesting to talk to third graders about planning
and zoning (laughter). But they got it!
Vanderhoefi You can talk on their level.
Wilburn: I can talk on their level.
Lehman: Regenia?
Bailey: I just want to say I look forward to working with ail of you and thank the
City staff for helping me get up to speed for this meeting. They've been
very helpful and I look forward to this journey together.
Lehman: A couple three...first I genuinely want to thank the Council for selecting
me to serve again as Mayor. I consider that an absolute privilege and an
honor and I look forward to working with all of you. This is interesting
because we, I received a phone call from a local citizen who had left the
community for a few days, and folks may or may not know the Police
Department offers a service of checking homes, if you're out of town, and
you call them, they'll make sure your house is locked. This particular
individual left town. Police checked his front door. It was locked. They
went down and checked his backdoor and I think it was locked. Walked
up the steps, found the door off his patio was not locked. Went in, locked
the door, left a card on the table, and this person called me and told me
how happy he was with the thoroughness of the Iowa City Police
Department. I said it would really be nice if you wrote a letter and
compliment the Police Department for this service. Well, I think he would
have except he doesn't want anybody to know he left the door unlocked
(laughter). But anyway, you might relate that to the Police Department.
Obviously they are very thorough and they do a great job, and it would be
better, no it wouldn't be better, if you gave his name. It's probably more
fun this way. One other thing, I have to in my last gasp, I have to say "go
Hawks". What a tremendous, tremendous, showing the lqawkeyes had at
the Outback Bowl and I think even those people who may not have been
Iowa fans or Hawkeye fans before that game, have got to love that team,
love that coach, and it's a tremendous thing for the State of Iowa and
especially for this community. Go Hawks! Steve?
Atkins: Nothing, sir.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.
#16 Page 49
Lehman: Eleanor? Marian? Do we have a motion to adjourn? Second? Ali in
favor? Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 6, 2004.