Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-05 TranscriptionJanuary 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 1 January 5, 2004 Council Work Session 6:55 PM Council: Bailey, Champion, Elliott, Lehman, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilbum Staff: Atkins, Dilkes, Franklin, Helling, Howard, Karr, Rocca TAPE: 04-02, BOTH SiDES 04-02, SiDE ONE 3 d (1). CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING TItE STATEWlDE MUTUAL AID COMPACT Atkins/With the agenda tonight under your Consent Calendar, you have a resolution adopting statewide mutual aid compact. Andy's here it! you have any questions about that before Karin gets started on hers. It would be under Resolutions d. (1). Yeah. O'Donnell/Don't have any questions. Lehman/Are there any questions on d. (1)? Vanderhoef/I would take a briefing on it. Champion/I've got a briefing. Atkins/OK. Rocca/A little briefing? Certainly, sir. O'Donnell/Three minutes or less. Rocca/Enabling legislation passed by the governor, I think a couple of years ago, for Iowa Mutual Aid Compact and we looked at it and we learned that subsequently down the road this may be one of those (can't hear) that we need to be a participant in the Iowa Mutual Aid Compact in order to qualify for some federal funding through Homeland Security. It hasn't come to pass yet but this is not a mandated piece of legislation. It's enabling and basically it allows us to share resources with other political subdivisions that have signed onto the 1MAC through natural or manmade disaster. I think back to the floods of '93, the windstorms of'98 where at some point some of our resources were tapped out. This would be--or those would be examples of types of emergencies provided that we have declared ourselves a disaster and have requested this assistance through Emergency Management, ultimately it will go to state Emergency Management and Homeland Security and then other entities that have signed on could share resources. We certainly always have the right for whatever reason not to send our resources out of the City. When we have needs here, the winds, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 2 the floods, those types of things, we can maintain our resources, we don't have to send anybody. Likewise, other political subdivisions can do the same. Should we need it though, it's nice to know if our resources here are exceeded, we have the ability to request. Lehman/I would assume if we adopted sort of a position that unless we absolutely had to have these folks, that we would give our resources to other communities. I mean, if we can't do that, there's no point in passing this. Rocca/No, but it does allow you to maintain coverage at home. That's really--- Lehman/No, I would always assume we would take care of our own first. Rocca/Certainly. Lehman/And we don't have the intent of helping other folks when we can, we shouldn't be passing this. Rocca/No, but I think the intent is it's reciprocal--- Lehman/Right. Rocca/...to have the luxury to call if we need it as well as to help if others need help. Lehman/And the only cost involved is if and when we do this. Rocca/Right. And staff has met, we've developed costs for all of our rolling stock equipment, personnel, and an overtime rate to include wages and benefits. So, ali of those things are in place. The recommendation was made to the City Manager that we do this, provide Homeland Security probably more than anything but as well to take care of situations out of the national disasters as well given our immediate past experience. Elliott/How does this differ from what has happened in the past? In the past, I know that when there has been a problem, an emergency, other towns have brought their fire tracks. Have they in the past been reimbursed by us and if we do the same, do they reimburse us? Rocca/We have a 28-E agreement now for fire protection in the County and we share resources pretty much willingly and freely within Johnson County. Elliott/Freely financially? Rocca/Correct. Correct. About the only cost that I think we've ever incurred is maybe a little fuel to get somebody back to their community. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 3 Elliott/This will change that free? Rocca/No, not at all. Elliott/OK. Rocca/That agreement stays in place unaltered, unamended, unchanged by this. This kind of lays on top of that as a larger umbrella of protection. Elliott/My only comment is, it seems to me, it's I understand why it is, but it's a pity this has to be in an official form. It seems to me that communities and individuals should work like this just because it's the right thing to do. But I understand why you have to--- Rocca/ Right. And I think the state Emergency Management's goal is to get all political subdivisions signed on. Elliott/Yes. Vanderhoef/And if moneys were to come, are you anticipating those too by capital kind of projects, not to reimburse cities for manpower? Are those kinds of things--- Rocca/ Any moneys we would receive would be strictly a reimbursement for either equipment or personnel that went to assist. Vanderhoef/So it can be--- Rocca/ It wouldn't be a revenue generating. It would kind of be a break-even situation. Vanderhoef/No. But it would pay for personnel? Rocca/Absolutely. So we wouldn't incur that cost. We, or the Council, the City Manager, could decide that they want to donate that. Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. Rocca/You know, equipment cost, personnel costs--that's also allowed, obviously, within the agreement. Vanderhoef/Is this sort of becoming an overlap with FEMA--that are the natural disasters versus--- Rocca/Clearly, it is. I mean, when you look at Homeland Security and Emergency Management, the Presidential decree for establishing a nationwide mutual aid system, nationwide instant command system. This is probably the next logical step. There is a--and I don't recall the name of it off the top of my head--but This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 4 there's a nationwide mutual aid compact as well. So a state can share resources with another state. So this is, while related to the Department of Homeland Security, or while related to that, it's the local version is probably the best way to put it. Vanderhoef/Where it actually happens. Rocca/All connected. Yes. Dilkes/I think one of the big benefits of this is that each entity that adopts it has to adopt verbatim the language of the statute, without variation. And so all these terms are set, issues about liability are decided; issues about how you request and how you receive aid and what state-generated forms to fill out to put what money is owed. And so hopefully those things can happen more quickly without, you know, people having to think through some of these things before they offer aid. Rocca/There are a couple provisions within that that ask us to identify authorized representatives, and that would be people who obligate funds, resources, and people. And then there are the designated contacts. And that would be more like myself, the police chief, the public works director, that would actually send people or equipment. And then we've identified key people in that as well, in those two areas. O'Donnell/Very good. Rocca/Any other questions? Lehman/Thank you, sir. Rocca/Thank you. Appreciate it. Addition to Consent Calendar Kart/Before Karin starts, I'd just like to note for the record, you have two additions to the agenda for tomorrow night. One you had mailed to your home, which is the motion approving the tentative agreement with AFCSME. And the other one would be an addition to the Consent Calendar, to issue a dancing permit to Los Portales on South Gilbert Street, and all the papers are in order. So, I'll amend the Consent Calendar tomorrow night to include that and distribute. The information regarding the tentative agreement was mailed to you on the 30th of December. Lehman/Right. Atkins/I think it's important for the new Council Members, you're in charge of dancing as well as--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 5 Lehman/So, 13b, the AFCSME agreement will be an agenda item. Karr/Yes, sir. Lehman/The other will just be an addition to the Consent Calendar. Karr/To the Consent Calendar. Lehman/All right. REVIEW ZONING ITEMS Lehman/OK. Franklin/We have a few Planning and Zoning items tonight. And I may go into a little bit more detail tonight because of the new members on the Council. Or that's a good excuse for me to go into more detail. (Laughter) Franklin/So, you'll just have to be tolerant, Mike. OK? Lehman/It's all right, Karin. You've got five minutes. (Laughter) O'Donnell/Get it done in three. a. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 119.94 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY, IDRS, AND INTERIM DEVELOPMENT MULTIFAMILY, IDRM, TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY--SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OPDH-5, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF PEPPERWOOD ADDITION AND EAST OF GILBERT STREET. (REZ03-00020) Franklin/OK, the first item is a public hearing on a rezoning of 119.94 acres from Interim Development, IDRS, to IDRM, to OPDH-5. This is the Sandhill Project and you can see on the overhead the area that we're talking about. For the rezoning, there's a portion of the area which is not included, and that is this portion down here which will be rezoned at some later period of time. So the rezoning is this crosshatched area. This is the part that's IDRM and this little piece down here, and then the rest of it is ail IDRS at the moment. The ID zones, the Interim Development zones, are those that are zoned that way because there is insufficient infrastructure. This was zoned at the time that we This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 6 did not have sewer in this area. Since a major truck line has gone in here, and so it is ripe for rezoning to some kind of development zoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation was to rezone this area from the Interim Development zones to the OPDH-5 by a vote of 6 to 0 with certain conditions. This is a planned development, and what that means is there are tradeoffs as this goes through. When we look at planned developments, it is about using different types of housing than would be allowed by the underlying zone, different dimensional requirements than would be allowed in the underlying zone. The underlying zone that this would start with is RS-5. RS-5 is a single-family residential zoning, five dwelling units per acre. So that is ~vhy the nomenclature on this is OPDH Overlay Planned Development Housing at five units per acre. So it's taking the basic concept of a fairly low- density single-family and making some adjustments because of the particular property that's involved to get the planned development. As we look at planned developments--that's fairly good but I don't know if it's better on your laptops or this rendition--but as we look at planned developments, we look at the, and look at rezonings of property, we look at the District Plans for the area and use those District Plans as a guide for whether the zoning that's being requested is appropriate. It is also a guide for any conditions that we may place on the zoning when we're going through this rezoning or planned development process. Now to get to the details of this particular project, as I indicated initially, it's 119.94 acres, there are 379 lots. All of the lots are for single-family detached housing. In that alone, one would not think that you would need to do a planned development because RS-5 is for single-family detached housing. But the distinction here is that the lots are smaller than what you could have in the RS-5 zoning by right. The lot sizes and the lot frontages, that is, the frontage along the streets, varies from the base requirements of RS-5. In the RS-5 zone, the minimal lot size is 8,000 square feet. In this project, 63.6 pement of the lots are less than 8,000 square feet. The lot frontage for a lot in RS-5 is 60 feet minimum. In this project, 75 percent of the lots are less than 60 feet of frontage. So what we have here is narrower lots and smaller lots. But the overall density is that which is allowed under RS-5. Excuse me. The reason for that, one of the primary reasons for that, is the preservation of the sand prairie. Well, I was going to say "purported" but that's too strong of a word. We don't know at this point exactly the qualities of this prairie, but there's a lot of documentation out there that points to this being a sand prairie. So what's happened is that the density has been transferred off the prairie into these smaller lots. There are 13 out- lots in this project, which is a little unusual. But a number of them are small spaces--like in this area there's some open space that is an out-lot. I'm going to just highlight the major ones. Two out-lots, and let me go back a minute here, because when we're talking about the lots and the subdivision, the plat, it is this entire shaded area, including this part. But the rezoning is just on the stippled area. Elliott/Karin? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 7 Franklin/Yes. Elliott/Tell me, what is an outlot? Franklin/OK. An outlot is a lot which is not for development ora housing type in that subdivision. It is set aside for some other purpose. And each of those purposes must be stated by state law as to what those out-lots are for. Two of them are this area over here by Gilbert Street at the intersection with the arterial that will go through here. And those out-lots are designated for future development. If you recall, this is where we had the Dinerstein project, and this property to the south of it is an area that the developers have considered for commercial development. These two properties at this point in time are not being rezoned. They are staying at their IDRM and IDRS designations. But they are part of the plat and will be designated as out-lots for future development. There are then four out-lots along this part of the project that are for stormwater management. Those will remain under the ownership and responsibility of the subdivision. There are two out-lots which are significant for open space: the prairie, which is 17.86 acres, and a small piece right here which is out-lot I, which adds 9,656 square feet to Wetherby Park, which is right in this area here. There is also an out-lot right here which is for a possible future right-of-way to provide access to this property over here. If that is not needed for access to this property, then that would become a buildable lot because it's 60 feet wide. Any questions about any of that so far? Got it? OK. The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and Don Anciaux is here tonight if he, if you have any questions specifically about the Commission's position. The Planning and Zoning's recommendation is approval with four conditions. Three of those conditions have been agreed to by the developer. One has not. The first condition is a left-bound turn lane on Gilbert Street, and I'm going to go back and forth here, hopefully, not to confuse you. This is Gilbert Street right here. If I go back to the larger picture here, at some point we will have an arterial coming across the river about at the location where the arrow is pointing and then coming through this project and dipping south into property which is currently outside the corporate limits. At the intersection of Gilbert Street-Sand Road and that arterial, the condition is that a left-turn lane be included on Gilbert-Sand Road for access into this subdivision. The subdivision is likely to develop from Sand Road and come in. Correct, Glenn? OK. Just tangentially or in concert with this point, the Gilbert-Sand Road improvement which is a project that is in your Capital Improvements Program in the budget scheduled for fiscal year '05 is a joint project between the City and the County, which would improve Sand Road, Gilbert Street from where it's been improved in the County, north to Napoleon Lane, the lane that goes in by the ball diamond. So, assuming that this all goes forward, as we're doing that project, we would work that leg-turn lane with the developer into that whole joint project that we're doing with the County. So the timing is rather good. This road is necessary from the Tiffs represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 8 developer's perspective to get access into this area. OK, the second condition is that there would be alley access to lots 161 through 204 and 304 through 330. These are the lots which are shown in yellow here, and those lots are shown with alley access. This is an alley right here. There's an alley back here, back here, and then also here. Those lots are about 30 feet wide, most of them. Some of them are, I think, the smallest one is 25.5 feet. To give you an idea of what that means, on Shannon Drive on the west side where there are the houses that are quite close to one another and they have the front porches and then the alley access in the back, those lots, I think are 25 or 27 feet wide. So, just to give you some notion of that. And that rear access that enables one to build on that narrow of a lot and have a single-family detached house. Lehman/How deep are the lots? Franklin/117.5. Lehman/OK. Franklin/Roughly. Lehman/That's pretty precise. Franklin/Well, some of them vary. Lehman/I see. Franklin/And down here there are some that are 113, 124, so--- Elliott/Karin, if the, in yellow are the narrow lots, is that correct? Franklin/Are the very narrow ones, yes. The ones in blue are the ones that are less than 60 feet without alley access. Elliott/OK. Franklin/OK, the third condition, whoa, OK. The third condition is that the design of the structures on these same lots would be approved by Planning and Zoning. And those design provisions are included in the conditional zoning agreement. I think you can read those--I don't to go over them. Basically, what I would call them is anti-monotony standards so there's variation as you go along, and you don't have the same house, blunk, blunk, blunk. And that has been agreed to by the developer. The fourth condition is the garage placement standards. And that's the condition that we're having some debate about. Or the developer hasn't agreed. Now that would apply to all of these lots that are blue. Those are the ones that are less than 60 feet and do not have access to an alley. The standards are basically that the garage face be no more than 50 percent of the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 9 width of the whole building, except it can be 60 percent if it's set back a little. Also, that the garage be flush with or behind the building face except that they may be pushed forward up to 6 feet if there's a pomh which is also placed next to the garage. The reason for this has to do with the residential character of the neighborhood and how it fits in with this neighborhood. What we have done, what the Commission has done is go back to the South District Plan, and these statements am statements that are within the South District Plan, and remember we go back to these plans for not just the color map of what the land use is, but also the principles that it states. And use that in guiding us in making decisions about rezoning. In the South District Plan, which was adopted in 1997 after our regular Citizen Planning process, there is specific language about housing density, increasing lot sizes being reduced, then attention must be paid to design issues such as garage and driveway locations. When we say design, we're not talking about materials, we're not talking about paint, we're not talking about shutters, we're not talking about architecture. What we're talking about is the placement of the building on the lot, something that we have always talked about with zoning. That is part of what zoning is. It is land uses, but it also is the placement of buildings on lots and how that contributes to or does not contribute to a feeling of congestion or a feeling of neighborhood. The issue here is the streetscape and the impression that what one gets as you go down this street when you look at the streets that will be affected by this, the collector street here, this local street here in which the housing types, the lots are dominated by these naiTower lots. There is going to be a cumulative effect of however these buildings are placed on those lots. There's a statement that John Yapp included in one of his memorandums that I will refer you to in the packet that I think sums up nicely the concerns that if there is a predominance of houses in which the garage is placed forward and tends to dominate that street face, the appearance of the public street in the neighborhood is less residential and the integrity and function of the neighborhood is compromised as a result. O'Donnell/Karin? Franklin/Yes. O'Donnell/Excuse me. On these narrower lots, when you're saying that the garage cannot be more than 50 percent of the front of the house--- Franklin/Mm-hmm. O'Donnell/...what's the width of the lot you're talking about? Franklin/It would be anything less than 60 feet. Most of these lots are 50 feet. And at this point, because this is a very visual thing, I think it's important that you see what we're talking about, and Karen Howard, who is associate planner in our department, has a presentation that was done for the Planning and Zoning This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 10 Commission--it's quite brief, it's about 10 minutes--that gives you a visual of what this is about. So I think I'd like to turn it over to her now so that she can go through that, and it goes to show you some of those dimensions--- Champion/Just, I did say though, if they were willing to put a porch in the front of the house, the garage could be out. Franklin/Right. Champion/Them intends to be at least six (can't hear) Franklin/Right. With the, if the garage is six feet out, that there be a porch that is on that same plane as the garage--- Champion/ OK. Just wanted to clarify that. Franklin/And we'll have an illustration of that, too. O'Donnell/Doesn't it seem though like if the garage extends out, it affords a little bit of privacy like an alcove in there or something? To me, it would. Franklin/That's something that you can, I mean, that's a matter of your judgment, you know, whether you think that that's a positive or not. What we're looking at it from is the perspective of the street, which is the public space. Roughly 20 percent of the land in the City is streets, and about 80 percent of the public space, the space that we are responsible for is in streets. So that's why it becomes a very important factor for us as we build new neighborhoods. Howard/Just to give you a little zoning history and to show you how lot size and really the width of the lots really affects how neighborhoods have been built over time in Iowa City, from 1925 to 1960, the lot width requirements were 40 to 50 feet, and as you know, most of those subdivisions were built with alleys, and so these are the kinds of streets that we saw during that period. So you didn't see the garage, and the cars were not--them weren't as many cars around obviously. And then in 1960 the lot width requirements in the Zoning Code changed, and we went to the wider lots. They were a little less deep, but they were wider, and the lot width ranged from 80 to 100 feet, and so that's when we had all the ranch style houses. We saw at the beginning of that period, front-loaded garages. Developers didn't put in alleys as much. We had, still had the one-car garages, but over time we saw more and more two- car garages. But you still saw mostly house because the houses were long, long and narrow. And then in 1983, the Zoning Code changed again, and we went to narrower lots, once again, allowed narrower lots and we started to see homes getting built on those narrower lots, but we obviously had the lifestyle change where we have mom cars, and so what happened, the easiest place to put the garage since alleys weren't being built any, or very infrequently, it This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 11 squished that house together, that ranch style house and that garage really popped out front. It was the easiest place to put the garage. Some new building designs came into vogue, and we started to see the garage out front. O'Donnell/Karen, can I ask you a quick question again? On that last picture, you would not be able to build this house now, is that right? Because that garage is more than 50 percent of the front of that house. Howard/You mean, with the garage placement standards? O'Donnell/Yes. Howard/I don't know what the actual--it's hard to tell from this what the measurements of the two because that portion, this portion to the right here is recessed quite a ways back so it's difficult to say as you measure it, without losing the building plan. O'DonnelI/But it appears to me like that garage would be more. Howard/It appears that it is more. I don't know. It's probably significantly back so it's hard to tell from that perspective, but yes. O'Donnell/OK. But if this garage was wider than the recessed part back there, you could not build that house? Howard/On the narrow lots. O'Donnell/On the narrow lots. Howard/This is probably a 60-foot lot. O'Dormell/OK. Howard/And then the other trend we're seeing more and more of is that more and more houses are going with the three-car garage. We have people desiring three-car garages so this is what you see. And there's a number of concerns here. You know, if you have one or two houses down the street that have the wide garage, it's not so much of an issue, but when you have every house down the street that's the same, you get a lot of pavement, you see less and less of the house. These are all houses that are built in Iowa City, North Liberty, Coralville, all these pictures were taken in the neighborhood. Another issue is if you really have a blank face on the street, you have a lot of paving out front, it leaves very little room for street trees or front yard landscaping. And we have the wider driveways that interrupt the sidewalk. It's less pleasant to walk down the street. It's a little less safe because you have all of the cars turning and backing up out into the street. And you have also the loss of the on-street This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 12 parking that you have in the neighborhoods with alleys are or with narrower driveways. Especially as garages get to three-car garages, those driveways really get wide. And some of the driveways are even wider than some of the streets. And as you build, if you have all the same house down the street, you get sort of this garage-scape effect, and we have more and more of that occurring in Iowa City as well as surrounding communities, and you get this sort of garage-scape effect. So you see very little living space and more like, warehouse-looking streets. So the question is, is it possible to have it all? Is it possible to have both affordable small lot neighborhoods that would prevent sprawl? We like to have the narrow lots because they're easier to serve the infrastructure. They keep us from sprawling out into the countryside. They're less costly to build, more affordable. There are a lot of good things with narrow lot subdivisions. But can we have it all? Can we both preserve the public part of the subdivision, which are the streets, the most important public parts of the subdivision which are the streets and still have all the things that we expect to accommodate our modem lifestyles? And we think that you can. You can have it all. You can have the front-loaded garages, you can have the attached garages, you can have the living space, the private living space behind the garages. People like to have family rooms behind the garages that face the backyards, that you have that private space. It still preserves the fronts. For instance, this is a subdivision in Coralville where the garages are flush with the front of the house. You still have a really nice streetscape as you walk down the street. There's all two-car garages and they take up about 50 percent. Just around the comer from that subdivision was this subdivision, or these houses, which do not meet the standards that we're suggesting. Things that we would like to have are living areas that are visible from the street, rather than the blank garages, streets that are pleasant for walking, biking, and visiting our neighbors, room for street trees and front yard landscaping. These are all possible and these are all houses that are built in subdivisions in Iowa City. Now this is an old subdivision and people have said well, it's because the trees have grown up that the streets look so great. But it's going to be very difficult for this street to ever look like this street because there's just not room for the street trees and the landscaping in the front, and when you have such wide driveways and so little space in the front. So, as Karin said, how this relates to Sandhill, these are the garage standards illustrated. No more than 50 percent of the front of the, the length of the front facade can be taken up by garages. These are all houses that meet that standard. These are in the South Point subdivision. This is in Coralville. These houses all meet that standard. The garages are no more than 50 percent depth. On a 50-foot-wide lot, you can accommodate a nice size two-car garage and still meet the standard. O'Donnell/Well, what if you wanted a three-car garage? Howard/You're going to have to have a wider lot. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 13 Lehman/A bigger lot. Vanderhoef/Or a double load. Howard/And that's, you know, one of the things when you lay out a subdivision, if you want, if you're expecting a market of people that want three-car garages, you maybe need to have, plat it out with wider lots. Lehman/What's the setback? Howard/Now, this would allow--the setback in Iowa City is 20 feet. Lehman/Could this be what you're proposing for Sandhill as well? Howard/That hasn't come under discussion as being, that they wanted to vary from that. I was assuming they want to keep that same--now one of the things that the developer said that some people like a little extra wide garage. The 60 pement one on a 52-foot-wide lot which a lot of the lots in the subdivision are 52 feet wide, that would make with your side setbacks, you'd have a 42-foot-wide house. That would mean that the garage could be 25 feet wide, which would be an extra wide two-car garage, almost a three-car garage, if you set that garage back six feet from the front of the house so that it's not so dominant. Vanderhoef/Is 19 feet minimum size for a double garage? Howard/I think 20 is pretty standard. Sometimes you're going up to 20, 22. I think 18 you couldn't get--that would not be so standard. Lehman/It's pretty (can't hear) Howard/Yeah. Vanderhoef/It seems like some of those designs that were congested in the, from that other developer were like 19, and I was just trying to see how that would fit particularly if you went down--- Franklin/The Saddlebrook one? Is that what you're referring to? Vanderhoef/I don't know. I read it three weeks ago. (Laughter) Howard/Yeah, you see sometimes a 19-foot-wide garage but most of them are 20 feet. Vanderhoef/OK, 20. That's fine. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 14 Howard/And then the second standard is the placement of the garage, where it is with regard to the front side of the house and the standards that it needs to be flush with or back from the front of the dwelling. And these standards are illustrated in these houses. Here the garage is slightly back from the front of the house. Here's a two-story model with the garage slightly back. Here it is flush with the front of the house and there's a little porch out front. And this--the only photograph from a city outside the area--this is from Madison, Wisconsin, which illustrates that you can still have a two-car attached garage and set it even further back. And you had also--the further you set the garage back, the narrower you can get your driveway and the less you have to interrupt the sidewalk. And this is then set way back. This is an infill lot on Governor Street. So you can even set--you can have a really wide garage if you set it way back on the lot. There are a lot of different ways you can meet the standard. We're not saying you have to build a certain type of house. There's all sorts of houses that you can meet the standard with and there's a second standard here with the porch exception that Kafin talked about with the dimensions. This is a house that meets that minimum dimensions. The garage is flush with the front of the porch here. This is in Southpoint Subdivision. This is in Coralville where they have the garage flush with the front of the porch. I believe this is also in Southpoint. So you still get that residential feel of the house rather than just the garage. So, sort of in summary, I guess, we do feel like there is a choice, that you can have it all. You can have both the small-lot neighborhoods with the nice residential feel to the neighborhood that will age and endure over time. We feel like that, the garage-scape is becoming more and more of a problem. Vanderhoef/May I ask a question that isn't specific to this, but looking at the pictures brought up something that happened this fall? I looked at one of your pictures and it looked like the pomh was so tiny, the pad out by the door. And my experiences with some of the houses south of Highway 6 when I was door knocking--- Franklin/Uh-huh. Vanderhoef/You don't want to stand right up to the door when you know that there's going to be a storm door swing out at you, and I found them almost dangerous. The paths were so small that if you backed up to give enough room to swing it around and not be in their face intmediately. Elliott/You're talking about my house. Vanderhoef/Is that it? Elliott/That's it. Vanderhoef/You know, and that would be a concern with these kinds of designs that they This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 15 "put the porch there" to say they had a porch. Lehman/Can you distinguish between a stoop and a porch? Franklin/There's a minimum size of 48 square feet. No dimension can be less than 6 feet, and a porch by definition requires a roof. And the roof is not your issue, Dee, but it's to--it gets at the massing to what you're trying to do with that porch as the garage comes forward is to diminish the mass of the garage by having more of that residential space there, out there with the garage. I think the point we want to make is that--I think Don can say that the Commission and the staff were together on this, that the concern here is how the appearance of these streets manifests itself as it's built out, and that's important to us as a community because those streets are used by the people who live there. They are used by the people who develop it. They are used by the people who are in the neighborhoods abutting it. That the residential feel of it as opposed to this kind of more "warehousey" commercial feel of the garage is an important public concern. And if there is a way to do it better, which we believe there is, those examples are out there in Iowa City, in Coralville, they're being built now. That that is what should be done as the tradeoff for having those smaller lots. Otherwise, we make the minimum lot sizes always the larger lots. I would not like to see us go in that direction. I like to leave the option there of those smaller lots for a number of reasons. Karen addressed one, that is the issue of sprawl and wanting to infill and the efficiencies of that. But it's also a matter of cost. One of the things that we're looking at with the Development Code is what are ways in which the Development Code affects affordability? Well, minimum lot frontage affects affordability. One of the reasons that developers will go with these narrower lots is because they can get more lots in. You can get more housing in, you can have more affordable units. If we require 60, 80, 100 foot frontages so that we can have the three-car garage and still be flush with the house and not have it dominated by the three-car garage, that's going to be more expensive housing. And so there's a way to do it better. Smaller lots still have livable space and have a nice residential feel to the neighborhood. And that is the purpose of that fourth condition. Lehman/That fourth condition is not more than 50 percent of the frontage and the garage? Franklin/Right, unless--but there's the exception--- Lehman/Right. Franklin/...of you can 60 percent if you're setback. Lehman/Right. Franklin/Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of iowa City Council work session lan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 16 Elliott/I thought, is it all right to express a concern right now? Lehman/Yeah, we're not going to have the public hearing tonight but I think you certainly may. Elliott/Yeah, I just think that, Karen, I thought it was really interesting as I prepared for this, I copied down a quote, and it was the same quote you had: "The appearance of the public street in the neighborhood is less residential in integrity and the function of the neighborhood is compromised as a result. The cumulative effect, etc., is a less pedestrian-friendly neighborhood." I just don't agree with that. After reading that I drove down Wellington Drive and then I also drove down Lindemarm--is that it? Lindemann Drive. Franklin/Mm-hmm. Elliott/And everyone of those very attractive houses had the garages that protruded. Some had some porches but they rarely were the same. They didn't come out to meet where the garage protruded to. Franklin/And the standard would not address the Lindemann, because Lindemann is an RS-5 subdivision with 60 foot lots. Elliott/Is it then--are you saying that if the lot is larger that is not--- Franklin/It's not as much of a concern. Elliott/The appearance doesn't concern you as much. Franklin/It is not as much of a concern. It is when you go to that narrower lot, when you're kind of squeezing the house on there and it's the garage that pops out. It's on the narrower lots, the concern. And that's a real critical point because a lot of the lots which are 60 feet and larger are fine. But it's when you've got the narrow ones and then it all comes together in a number of--remember how many lots we have in this project that are less than 60 feet. Elliott/And is the reason those lots are narrower, does that have anything to do with the amount of space that the developers are providing for that sand prairie? Franklin/Sure. Absolutely. Elliott/So the developers are providing a great deal for the sand prairie and that's the reason the lots are smaller. Franklin/Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 17 ElliottJ And because the lots are smaller, then we don't want them to put the houses the way they want to put them. It seems something's wrong there. Franklin/Because we believe there is a better way to do it, that is in the public interest because this is creating a neighborhood here for all time. Elliott/Mm-hmm. Franklin/And, yes, the developer has made many compromises. This has been a long and arduous journey, has it not, Glenn? There have been a lot of tradeoffs that have happened and the developers made a lot of compromises. And if there was not evidence in the community that you can do it another way, get the same house, the same square footage, the same cost point, and yet still have something that meets the concern, then why not do it? Why not? Wilburn/Has the developer--I know we're going to have the public hearing--but the question is has the developer expressed to you and staff what component of that feature he disagrees or just what staff does; has he said what part of it or what--- Franklin/Yes, but I think probably that's best left to the developer to express at the public hearing. Lehman/All right. Let me just say, and ! think we've gone long enough with this one tonight because we are going to have a public heating tomorrow night. Should there be a feeling on the part of the Council that we may not concur with Planning and Zoning Commission, this public hearing will be continued tomorrow night during which time we will schedule a meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission to get their input as to why the conditions were put on that they're presenting to us. And the other thing that I would suggest, if Council is interested, I went on a tour with Karin and--- TAPE 04-02, SIDE TWO Lehman/...to various neighborhoods in the community looking at various homes and garage widths and sidewalks and driveways and setbacks and whatever. And that certainly is something that we could arrange for Council to do prior to'us voting on it. That would be up to Council. Franklin/The other reason that you need to continue your public hearing is because we do not have a signed conditional zoning agreement. If you were to close the public hearing tomorrow night, you would have a re×oning with no conditions. Lehman/All right. So this is going to be continued anyway. Anyway, we'll go from there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 18 O'Donnell/Just one more question. So, Karin, we're saying that this is fine with the amendments to it? Champion/Yes. Franklin/Yeah. O'Donnell/That's OK? Franklin/Oh, yeah. I think we've agreed on everything except this one condition about the garage standard. Lehman/Which hasn't been signed and which we could not close the public hearing until it is. Franklin/Right, just by law we can. O'Donnell/I understand. Lehman/OK. Elliott/Thank you. Lehman/Moving along. So, we will not be considering in first consideration tomorrow night; we'll be continuing the public hearing. b. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 16.1 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL FACTORY BUILT HOUSING (RFBH) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY-12 (OPDH-12) AND AN OPDH PLAN FOR PROPERTY ON HEINZ ROAD. (REZ03-00024) Franklin/OK, next item is a rezoning of 16.1 acres from RFBH to OPDH- 12. This is in Saddlebrook, which is Heinz Road extended on the east side. What this shows you, and it's kind of, it's very hard to see, on the right is the RFBH zoning what was already approved, and these are all individual manufactured housing units that are placed along Heinz Road on either side. What is proposed in this amendment is a change which has a mixture of duplexes and townhouses. The original has 66 manufactured units. The new has 78 multifamily units. There are two eight-dwelling unit multifamily buildings up at the northern end, 27 duplexes which are scattered throughout here and then 16 townhouse-style units here and then here across from the multifamily. This project--these are the units that are being proposed, duplexes which have alley access. Here we have a front-loaded unit and a side-loaded unit. These all meet the garage standards that we spoke of with the Sandhill project likewise, and this one, this part is pulled out. This is the multifamily. So these are the designs of the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 19 various units in that project. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this on a 6-0 vote. We have on your agenda tomorrow night the public heating as well as first consideration. We will be putting the first considerations on with the public heating, as I understand from your organizational meeting direction, but you have the option of either voting on that or not for first consideration. And for the new Council Members, first consideration you always have three on a rezoning. First consideration means that you feel positively enough about it to go on to another reading. It does not mean that it has passed or that you necessarily are going to vote for it at the very end, but you're going onto the next reading. 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) Franklin/Item c, if there's no questions about that, Item c is rezoning 26.98 acres from Highway Commercial to SAO, that's Sensitive Areas Overlay Highway Commercial. This is the Davis Subdivision on Mormon Trek extended, the new Mormon Trek south of Highway 1. This is the subdivision and the reason that it is before you for a rezoning has to do with the wetlands issue here. There is a drainage way which hms through the southwesterly portion of this project and this is a wetland which is a jurisdictional wetland; however, it is a low-quality wetland. It is dominated by reed canary grass, which is an invasive species. What is being suggested is that this wetland be modified, and let me see if I've got a, yes, it's being, this is the development site here, the wetland under consideration, and then the compensatory wetlands are over here on the Davis property that is west of 218. There's a pond here and one back here. In this circumstance, as I've said, because there are compensatory wetlands which means that you put them someplace else in the same watershed, these then will be reconstructed. There are two other issues with this, relative to the wetlands. One is reducing the buffer around the wetlands which is this kind of a hatched area, and it's extremely difficult to read this because there's so much hatching on top of hatching. But there's a buffer area that goes around the wetlands that is being reduced as well as being averaged. What that means is that in some places it's closer to the wetlands; in other places, it's farther away. It's never any closer than 25 feet, which is a minimum reduction that you want to get. Yes, Emie? Lehman/Karin, this has to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers--- Franklin/ Yes, it does. Lehman/...one way or the other. So I mean as long, I don't quite understand our role in this. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 20 Franklin/OK, the Army Corps of Engineer does not require a buffer around wetlands. Our local ordinance does. Lehman/OK. But the wetlands have to meet their standards--- Franklin/Yes, they do. Lehman/...a buffer in addition that we have (can't hear) Franklin/Yes. The Corps has to approve the compensatory wetlands and all the mitigation that happens here. Lehman/OK. Franklin/The buffering, the averaging of the buffering is our local code and that's why you have it. Lehman/OK. Franklin/We will hold the third reading on this until we get approval of the Corps on the wetlands land. d. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1/3 OF AN ACRE FROM PLANNED HIGH-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PR/VI) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY PLANNED ItIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. (OSA-PRM) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 512 S. DUBUQUE STREET. (REZ03- 00022) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin/OK, Item d is a rezoning from PRM to OSA-PRM of 512 South Dubuque Street. This is the second consideration. There's already some construction going on there in the foundation on Dubuque Street. Mr. Clark does not let moss grow on him. Lel:anan/Especially when it's below zero. e. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH OF KIRKWOOD AVENUE AND WEST OF DIANA STREET. (VAC03-00001) (PASS AND ADOPT) Franklin/Item e is to consider an ordinance vacating a portion of alley right-of-way south of Kirkwood, west of Diana. This was brought to us by the Lensings. This is pass and adopt. It is dependent upon your position on item number 7. Item 7 is the actual conveyance of the alley to the Lensings and to two other abutting property owners. John Roffrnan and Cortland Berwald. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 21 Champion/We should defer that till after we do number 7 then? Franklin/You can do that. You can just reorder the agenda and put Item e after number 7. Or if you know that you are going to pass number 7, you can just go ahead and vote on number e. Champion/I don't think we ever know until we vote. O'Donnell/But this is pass and adopt so it's all (can't hear) Franklin/It's a new age, Connie. Champion/Right. Lehman/No, but the point is--if there's anyone on the Council that has a problem with number 7, they need to speak--- Franklin/The conveyance. Lehman/...before we do Item e. Franklin/Correct. O'Donnell/That's fine. Lehman/OK. Bailey/I have a question about that. Franklin/OK. Bailey/It's totally a really simple question. So, staff recommends that the conveyance be subject to the utility easement and the inclusion ora curb so the owners will include a curb? Franklin/Mm-hmm. Bailey/And that's why the price is below market? Franklin/Right. Bailey/OK. Franklin/They need to put the curb on the alley which runs bet~veen Diana and the north- south alley and that's so traffic won't go out into Diana Street from the funeral home. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City CotmciI work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 22 Wilburn/That was also to address some concerns that some of the neighbors had addressed. Franklin/Right. We're concerned about more traffic on Diana so that's why the curb was put in. Bailey/The curb will prevent that more traffic issue? Lehman/Right. Franklin/Yep. Elliott/Those concerns that we earlier heard, have those been alleviated by this? Franklin/Yes. Elliott/OK. L CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING TItE EXTRATERRITORIAL FINAL PLAT OF KENNEDY SUBDIVISION. (SUB02-00026) Franklin/OK, last item then is the resolution approving the extraterritorial final plat of Kennedy subdivision. This is the plat that is in the county. That's what "extraterritorial" means. We review any subdivisions within two miles of Iowa City's corporate limits. The preliminary on this was approved November 2nd. This is the final. It's a fairly simple four lots, yeah, four-lot residential subdivision off of Dane Road south of 218. And it is recommended for approval. All is in order. Bailey/Since that's extraterritorial, that has no implications on City services, right? Franklin/That's correct. Bailey/OK. Vanderhoef/And it's in another watershed with a lot of hills over there so it's one that we were never--- Bailey/ OK. Franklin/Right. It is not--- Vanderhoef/...services to. Franklin/It's not in our growth area even. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 23 Bailey/Right. Vanderhoef/And that's why partly that--- Bailey/Because of the watershed (can't hear)? Vanderhoef/There's that piece of (can't hear) water land over there so there are several small little subdivisions of four or five houses clustered. Franklin/I'm done with that. Lehman/Thank you. Wilburn/Thank you. Franklin/Oh, I guess I've got the next item. Champion/You've got another one. O'Donnell/Do you want to do that, Karin? 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO TIlE ASSIGNMENT OF THE PENINSULA NEIGIIBORItOOD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FROM TERRY L. STAMPER IIOLDINGS, L.L.C. TO PENINSIJLA DEVELOPMENT L.L.C. AND APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORIIOOD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Franklin/Do you want to take a break first or--OK. Well, heck, I don't have my notes. The other item that is on your agenda tomorrow night is the reconstituted Peninsula Development. Lehman/Which is item number 12. Franklin/OK, I just thought what I'd do is run over some highlights of this agreement as opposed to going through the whole thing. What has happened, I think you're aware, that there has been some change in the players of the Peninsula Development team. Essentially, we're working with the same group of folks except for Mr. Stamper is, has left and there are two new investors, William Johns and Wayne Webber, both businessmen from Michigan, who are primarily investors in the project. Barry Kemper, who has been with this project from the beginning, is the president of the new company, the new company being the Peninsula Development Company, L.L.C. There is no longer a Terry L. Stamper Holdings, L.L.C. On site will be Kurt Grates, who has been the on-site manager for some time. What I expect to have happen This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 24 with this is that there will be a new way of presenting this project to the community in that it will be much more inclusive in terms of including local builders and local Realtors. Previously there was the development company, the building company, and the Realty company, all of which were controlled by Mr. Stamper. The developer company now, Peninsula Development Company, will do the development, that is, put in the infrastructure, create the lots. They will sell the lots to local builders who will build the buildings. Local Realtors will sell them. O'Donnell/Seems (can't hear)--- Franklin/I think it will be quite an improvement. Champion/Yeah. Elliott/Great. Franklin/Given where--- Lehman/Are you comfortable with this agreement, Karin? Franklin/I am very comfortable with the agreement. We have some performance standards in there now to do conveyance. There's some timing on the conveyance of the various phases. I feel very good about it. O'Dormell/Karin, I've got a, just a quick question. I read in the paper, Mr. Stamper said it was always his intention to exit the project after 30 houses or so? Elliott/Yeah. O'Donnell/I hope that was a figment of his imagination because I don't remember reading anything about that. Franklin/I was not aware of it. O'Donnell/OK. Good answer. That's all I needed. Bailey/Karin, since this is a little bit new to me--- Franklin/ Sure. Bailey/...and I only know about it from the papers, so this generally doesn't change the spirit of the, I mean, I was talking about that with (can't hear) Franklin/Not at all. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 25 Bailey/It will be more local, more inclusive. Franklin/Right. Bailey/OK. Franklin/One important thing about this is that in terms of the agreement, we took out everything that had to do with the planning of it because it's done. Bailey/Right. Franklin/We have in place the codes, the plats, the zoning that are necessary to carry out the vision. Those are fixed and they cannot change unless you guys change them. O'Donnell/But this plan seems to be overall more inclusive to the whole city? Franklin/Oh, yeah. O'Donnell/I think we're certainly headed in the right direction. Elliott/Do you have indications that including local builders, local Realtors is going to come to, that will be a reality? Or is that just hoped for? Franklin/The local realtors, no, the local realtors are already involved in it. And my understanding is that eight of the lots are being considered by one of the local builders right now. Elliott/Good. Good, I think that's terrific. Lehman/I think it's time. Champion/I mean, nobody knew it was them. Lehman/OK. Dee? 6. AN AMENDMENT TO THE FY04 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. Vanderhoef/Karin, while you're here, probably Steve Long or Steve Nasby would be the person I should ask, but item 6, where we're talking about changing the Consolidated Plan. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 26 Franklin/Yeah. Vanderhoef/This bothers me a bit in that one of our highest needs in the City is--oh, sorry about that--- Wilburn/I have to exit from the table as due to a conflict of interest. (WILBURN LEAVES TABLE) Vanderhoef/...one of our highest needs is for three-, four-, five-bedroom establishments for the large families. Franklin/Mm-hmm. Vanderhoef/And this is being changed now to accept one-bedroom housing. Franklin/Three units of one-bedroom--- Vanderhoef/Three rather than one large unit housing. Franklin/Yes, that was a concern that was raised by one of the HCDC Commission members, but the vote of the Commission was to approve this change as requested. Vanderhoef/Well, I know it gets, it helps a bit with the scattered sites, but it still is not what I envisioned when we--- Franklin/ Mm-hmm. Vanderhoef/...approved the money. Champion/Isn't it, you're right, Dee, and this is also in the Hoover School District, which does not have a high population of low income. Bailey/Right. Franklin/If you recall, when--- Vanderhoef/That's part of the tradeoff. Champion/Right. Franklin/Yes, and when the Council was considering the letter of support or resolution of support, that was one of the issues, is that these units were not within one of those more sensitive areas--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 27 Lehman/Right. Franklin/...or sensitive school districts. Champion/But it's unlikely that a one-bedroom affordable unit is going to have children living in it, so--- Vanderhoef/That's just it. Champion/...that's not going to help solve our problem. Franklin/No, it won't. Well, it won't. And this particular unit or building, my understanding is that those three units will be in conjunction with Successful Living, that there's a partnership between Successful Living and--- Champion/Right, that's right. Vanderhoef/OK, but these are all upstairs--- Franklin/Mm-hmm. Vanderhoef/...so they are not handicapped-accessible. Champion/Well, Successful Living doesn't necessarily have physical--- Vanderhoef/No, I recognize that. But sometimes we also have elderly that--- Franklin/No, it's not a perfect one and you're, I mean, Matt Hayek had those same concerns. Elliott/For future considerations, Second Avenue doesn't really meet my idea of scattering the facilities. It's still in South East Junior High area. Franklin/Well, we're going to have--- Elliott/And South East Junior High is suffering--- Franklin/...extensive discussions of what "scattered site" means. (Laughter) Lehman/That's going to be a big issue this year. Vanderhoef/Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 28 Franklin/It is. It's going to be a huge one. Champion/The junior highs are pretty equivalent. We only have two, so. There will be a third one someday. Elliott/Yes. Champion/(can't hear) have their share because it'll be in the North Liberty corridor. Lehman/Dee, do you have any other question on this? Vanderhoef/No, just to raise that. Lehman/OK, thank you, Karin. Franklin/You're welcome. Champion/I have one more question about this. What is that replacing? I mean, it's a tradeoff. What was going to be built with that money? Franklin/Five single-family or duplex rental units for large families. Champion/Where at? Franklin/It was not identified. Champion/I guess I'd like to know where they were going to be built. Franklin/I don't think they knew. O'Donnell/They didn't have a site. Franklin/They didn't have a site. Vanderhoef/That was part of it, that they couldn't find sites. Lehman/The original proposal was to acquire the land for the other units. Champion/Right. Franklin/Mm-hmm. Right. And that was the problem (can't hear) Champion/(can't hear) we dealt with with the school districts. Vanderhoef/And those are going forward. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 29 Champion/I thought those, we were going to be replacing some of those--- Franklin/No. Champion/...and I was totally for this, but (can't hear) they're not. Lehman/Thank you. Franklin/You're welcome. Elliott/Mike, that was more than five minutes. Lehman/An official timeout. Bailey/We're taking a break? Lehman/We're taking a break. Vanderhoef/It's only 8:00 o'clock. O'Donnell/Five minutes. (BP~AK) REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS Lehman/OK, £olks, the next item on the agenda are review of agenda items. Are there items on the agenda or the Consent Calendar that anybody has questions or comments about? 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 CONSIDERATION) O'Donnell/I have a question on 8. Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 30 Atkins/OK. O'Donnell/Stormwater utility, Steve? Atkins/Yeah, I was going to mention, you have, I thought you had correspondence. They've had some computer difficulties. The Chamber has asked that you postpone the readings on that. You know, from my perspective, you could certainly vote the second reading and hold the third. We did meet with the Chamber informally and we're having a meeting with a group of businesses that's being set up now. So, we're doing the things you asked us to do. We won't have that by tomorrow. Lehman/I did talk to Pat Guard this morning on the phone and Pat is going to, has met with staff as Steve has indicated. They've got a couple other meetings. As far as he is concerned, he would appreciate us delaying the third reading. Second reading he has no problem with. Of course, that's up to Council. Going through the second consideration obviously indicates an intention to proceed with something. But their board meeting at the Chamber is not until after we would have had our third consideration and he really would like us to wait for the third consideration until after the Chamber board meets. Elliott/What would be the possibilities--would it be possible to just not move on this, to accept something that would be a temporary fee program for one year, from X'04 to X'05, and set up a 2-4-6-8 fee schedule during that time, have an ad hoc group look at this. It seems to me there are so many things we don't know. What constitutes pollutants, what we do, what the cost of it will be. It seems to me looking at the budget for that, out of $700,000, something like only $200,000 is new cost. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. Atkins/It's more like about $450,000, Bob. We figure it's about--- Elliott/OK, I just took the things with the asterisks and you know more about that than I do. Atkins/The fee schedule that you're dealing with right now would generate about $700,000, that's correct. Elliott/Mm-hmm. Atkins/Of that about $450,000 would be available for capital projects, and those are decisions that you all would make. We've already applied to the feds for our permits, all the federal hoops we've jumped through. This really is down to the bottom line questioning of how we're going to finance the cost of this, the administration of the thing as well. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 31 Elliott/And something of a temporary nature won't fit? Atkins/Oh, I don't want to say that it wouldn't, Bob, yeah, that's not--that'd be--because once ~ve get the billing system set up. I don't want to set a billing system until I know for sure that you know we're on board with the thing. You know, you could bill it for a year and stop it. O'Donnell/I kind of disagree, too, with something temporary for something that's going to be permanent. Atkins/Yeah, this is not going to go away. O'Donnell/Yeah. This is something we're not going to have any choice on, it's a federal mandate, it's unfunded. But I have, I share the same concerns with Bob and I would really like to see the, I'd like to see us adapt some sort of a scale. I suggested it before, up to 10,000 feet, 2 bucks--- Atkins/Well, what I might want to suggest to you then, Mike and the others, is that ~ve need to have this meeting with the business and industry folks, who is the next group of people we're going to meet with. You see, they may come back with some options, let's hear what they have to say. O'Donnell/I would like to see this deferred then. Atkins/The third reading is the important one. Lehman/I don't have a problem with doing the second reading tomorrow night because I do think it does indicates, showing an intention on the part of the Council that we are going to have to move forward with something, but I think the discussion that you're talking about and whatever may come up at that meeting--- Atkins/Yeah. Then I could answer your question better, Bob, I think after we've met with those folks in business and industry. Champion/We're going to have to, we defer the second reading. I mean, whatever, if they come back to us or something or we pick up on Mike's idea, we're going to have to redo the three readings anyway. It's going to be a whole new program. So why--- Atkins/That's true. Lehman/What if they come back to us after the meetings and say, hey, we've looked at this, we think it's fair, it's OK, then all we have left is the third reading? O'Donnell/What are the odds, Ernie? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 32 (Laughter) Lehman/I don't know. Hey, it makes no difference to me. I'm just telling you I talked to Pat Guard this morning and as far as he's concerned and the Chamber's concerned, they have no problem with doing the second reading. They would like us not to do the third reading until they have an opportunity to come back and discuss whatever are the results of the conversations. Bailey/(can't hear) we can go forward if that's what they, I mean, if we're trying to be responsive to what they're concerned about, this seems to be responsive and (can't hear) Lehman/I think it is. Elliott/Now, for instance, those, I'm sorry, Regenia. It's my understanding there are some firms that have spent money--- Atkins/Yes. Elliott/...done the work, obtained permits--- Atkins/Yes. Elliott/...which puts them almost, why would they have to be charged? Why would they have to pay a fee when, it's my understanding, they've already done everything. They have gone above and beyond. Atkins/I'm assuming, you know, it's a big assumption, I'd have to confirm this--- Elliott/We'd like to get Ernie out of the way, wouldn't we? Atkins/...we have, larger physical plants have an obligation under the law to apply for their own permits because in many instances they take care of stormwater on site. This is intended to be a plan that contributes, hopefully, someday, ultimately, the whole watershed or the county would be involved, purely a regional approach to the thing. O'Donnell/But does it not appear--- Atkins/You're not wrong about that--- Elliott/But I'm not right either. Atkins/No, no, it's not a matter of right or wrong, I think you're suggesting they should be given some kind of credit for that work that they do. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 33 Elliott/Absolutely. Atkins/OK. And that I'm OK with and I've already suggested that. Vanderhoef/Part of that credit when we went to the designing bit as a unit of square footage, which happened to be the average that we came out with with the residential, that was when we came back with proposals to cut in half that for industrial and commercial areas because of what you're talking about as well as the fact that commercial and industrial almost always pays 100 percent on property tax and don't get the paybacks that the residential has. Elliott/Oh, yeah. Vanderhoef/So we have two pieces that we're recognizing is a problem for commercial- industrial. Elliott/If there is some change in fee structure, does that mean we have to go through three readings? O'Donnell/Three readings. Lehman/Oh, yes. Atkins/Yeah, it's--- O'Donnell/As I understand the committee, right, Ernie, did you all not only reduce the commercial 50 percent but you also reduced residential? Champion/No. Lehman/We didn't touch it. O'Donnell/You did not reduce? Where did I understand it was going to be $1 instead of $2? Lehman/I don't know. Atkins/It was talked about, Mike. It was discussed. Lehman/That was one of the proposals but was never--- O'Dormell/But you did not--- Lehman/No, and we all voted on keeping residential the same but reducing commercial by 50 percent. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 34 Vanderhoef/Which means it's $1 per unit and residential is $2 per unit. O'Donnell/I just think we need to look at that again. Champion/I think so, too. The other thing that I thought of today was that, you know, this was a problem I agree with you, Mike, I think we put ourselves at a disadvantage with other communities, even though with eventually they're going to have to pay more. But probably the biggest polluters are the City streets and all of us drive on them. I mean, it's probably not the industrial sites that are the biggest polluters. And so I think we're really hammering them for our own waste. Elliott/City streets represent 20 percent of the area. Lehman/Well, actually, you say we're hammering them, but they are actually paying one-half the fee that residential is for the same space. Champion/(can't hear) OK. (Laughter) Lehman/There may be a lot of discussion on this before it goes but obviously we're going to get some sort of recommendation or whatever from the Chamber after these--- Atkins/The bottom line for all of you is that you committed to the Chamber you would not give a final read on this until you heard from them. You did say that. Lehman/And that's all they asked for. Right. O'Donnell/I think basically all anybody's asking is to put Iowa City on a level playing field with surrounding communities and that should be important. Lehman/And that may be precisely what they come back and tell us. Elliott/And what the Council decides, we could decide otherwise in the future? You could un--- Lehman/ Well, you could change it, yes. Anything. Elliott/OK. O'Dounell/That's all I had on that. Lehman/OK, anybody else have any agenda items? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Cotmcil work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 35 13. b. AFCSME AGREEMENT. Atkins/The other one, Ernie, just a head's up, is that you got the labor agreement with AFCSME. Dale's here to answer any questions, if you need to know about that. It was mailed out. Lehman/It's a three-year contract, as I remember? Helling/Right. O'Dormell/It was one of our handouts. Champion/Yeah, I got it in the mail. O'Donnell/Did you get it? Champion/Yeah. And then don't we have that Mediacom thing on too? 13. a. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RATIFYING SETTLEMENT OF A RATE CASE PENDING BEFORE THE FCC RELATIONS TO MEDIACOM'S PROPOSED RATE INCREASE AND ITS CALCULATIONS RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF A MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATE FOR BASIC CABLE SERVICE. Lehman/Yes. Kart/The Mediacom is in front of you this evening as a handout, the resolution and the agreement itself. That's item number 13 on your agenda. Champion/They're raising the rates, is that true? O'Dormell/Yep. Lehman/Dale, tomorrow night when we do the Mediacom, would you be willing to give us a thumbnail sketch of what that is before we vote on it? Helling/I would be willing to do that. Don't expect me to know the details of these formulas, because I do not know that. Nor does anybody else on staff. (Laughter) Helling/This is the way we regulate basic rates and so this is, you know, we use a consultant to do all those calculations for us, and they've negotiated this deal, and I think it's the best we can do. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 36 Lehman/That's pretty straight--- Elliott/You can't do any better than the best you can do. Dilkes/Well, the rate is lower than we originally determined it should be so--- Lehman/ Right. Helling/A tradeoff on the amortization on the monies they pay for Public Access, but still in the end, we think this is as good a deal as we can get. 3. e. (1) CORRESPONDENCE. CAROL SPAZIANI AND PAT CANCILLA: CO- CHAIRS LWVJC REGIONAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE. REQUESTING WORK SESSION AGENDA TIME. Lehman/There's another issue. There was a letter from the League of Women Voters and they have worked with some diligence at looking at cooperative efforts between jurisdictions within the county. They've asked, they're requested time to be on a Council agenda, and I've mentioned this to Marian and I, she suggested, and I think this is a tremendous idea--we meet with the, all the jurisdictions within in the county basically once a month or so, and that includes the school district, Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin, everybody. Many times those meetings tend to be less than productive. Champion/It's every three months. Lehman/Whatever. I think this would be a tremendous place--- Champion/I do too. Lehman/...for them to make a presentation. Also, a tremendous opportunity for Iowa City and Coralville, the County, whatever, to respond, get some idea where we stand on this. Champion/Sounds like a great idea. O'Donnell/That's a good idea, Ernie. Lehman/Marian, you had a great idea. It's Marian's idea. I give her--so can we just have consensus. Kart/The next one is on the 21st. Lehman/21 st of January. At the County, I think you said? Karr/It's the Cotmty's turn to host, correct. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 37 Lehman/So, why don't we contact the League, indicate to them that we would have--- Kan'/And also send that agenda over to the, that agenda item over to the County sooner rather than later--- Lehman/Right. Kart/...so that they can have a block of time reserved. Lehman/And also I suspect that we need to tell them or the County needs to tell them about how much time they'll have. Karr/Right. They'll have them coordinate it. Lehman/All right. Atkins/Can I mention, Ernie, that to protect our interest, it is the Council's preference that we go to the 21 st, because I think the League had intended to go to everybody? Champion/I know, but I think they would do better if they presented it--- Lehman/ Absolutely. Atkins/Oh, I happen to believe the same thing. I just--- Champion/...we'd all hear the same thing. Atkins/Right. You just want to tell them that it's the Council preference that this be done in front of all the representative governments. Champion/Right. Right. Lehman/Oh, I think that's much better. O'Donnell/I do too. It's a great idea. Elliott/I, for one, feel really good about--I'd like to see some things happening along these lines. Champion/We all would. Elliott/I think there's plenty of room for productivity here. O'Donnell/I agree. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City CounciI work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 38 Vanderhoef/Well, with our working as a joint communications dispatch--- Elliott/Yes. Vanderhoef/...center, this is certainly one of those things and this is happening nationwide in various forms. Lehman/OK. Are there other agenda items that anyone would like to bring up? O'Donnell/Is that the one you had? Lehman/Do you want to discuss it again? Yes. Franklin/How many Council Members are interested in the tour that you mentioned with me? Elliott/Yes. Lehman/I really think that is a worthwhile trip. O'Donnell/You know, Emie, I live in Iowa City. ! see it all the time. Atkins/Karin, just to give you a head's up, it's probably going to have to be midday because it's dark in the morning and dark in the evening. It's going to have to be, I mean, we could arrange like a noontime and it should only take an hour or an hour and a haiti Karr/Are more than three going? Atkins/Well, hopefully, we can get as many going as we can. Karr/Well, then, you know, we'd better schedule a bus with media. Atkins/You know, we will, we'll take care of that. Yeah, we're OK with that. It's just that it has to be midday and affect people's work schedules, so just keep that in mind. Elliott/Will you pick a time and contact us? Atkins/Yes. Elliott/Thank you. Lehman/OK. Thank you, Karin. This represents only a reasonably accurate ~anscription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 39 COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS Lehman/Council appointments. Airport Commission. We had one application, Daniel Clay. Is there a--- O'Donnell/Why not. Champion/Anybody brave enough to handle that Commission should be given it. O'Donnell/That's true. Lehman/All right. I am, I think I'm hearing--- Bailey/ Get some women on it. (Several talk) Lehman/...consensus. Danielle Clay. (Laughter) Bailey/Did you tell him that's the condition? Lehman/No, I just mispronounced it. Board of Adjustment, we have one applicant. Karen Leigh. Is that? Wilburn/Sounds good. Bailey/I've worked with Karen, I think she's great. Northside Neighborhood. Lehman/OK, the Parks and Recreation Commission. There were, as I remember--- Kart/Do you want to go with Tim, Board of Appeals? Lehman/I'm sorry. Karr/Board of Appeals is OK for Tim? Lehman/Oh, I'm sorry, Tim Fehr. Vanderhoef/It's a reappointment and I think we should go forward with that. Lehman/All right. Sorry I missed that. Champion/(can't hear) person I wanted--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 40 O'Donnell/Where? Champion/For Parks and Rec. O'Donnell/It's too late, we've already appointed. Lehman/Parks and Rec. Vanderhoef/Dave Fleener. Bailey/Dave Fleener. Wilburn/Dave Fleener. Lehman/Dave Fleener, I think I've heard three or four people say that. Planning and Zoning Commission. There were several applicants for that position. Vanderhoef/I looked at a couple different people. I looked at both Helen Burford and Robert Brooks. Mr. Brooks might have conflict of interest if there were University-Iowa City kinds of activities. But Miss Burford has had some interesting experience, shall we say, on the floating city kind of infrastructure and planning around how that would be useful. I'm not positive but certainly looking at maps and talking about policies might be a good addition. O'Donnell/She's also been there. You know, (can't hear) Anna Buss has applied and served on City commissions and has applied for this. I think she would be also good on this. Elliott/I found, as I was looking through the four that I guess five, I found Helen Burford looked extremely interesting to me. But then I went to--just, Helen Burford's experience is her work experience were very interesting. Anna Buss has lived her a long time. She has applied several times. I think she's been involved. I would be interested in Anna. Bailey/I know Helen and I just want to comment also on her work style because she's been very active since she's moved back in the Northside Neighborhood, jumps right in, works very well with lots of different groups of people, has a ~:eat communication style so I think that she would be a real asset to this besides her work experience which would really contribute. My question about this particular Commission regarding conflict of interest and how seriously do we consider that when we're looking at appointments with people who are property owners or--I mean, a couple of people mentioned that potentially they would and Dee mentioned the University aspect. Lehman/There are, any member of the Planning and Zoning Commission when dealing an issue in their own neighborhood or whatever--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 41 Bailey/Mm-hmm. Lehman/...can conceivably have a conflict of interest. I think there are certain professions that might; for example, if you're a real estate agent, you might be--that might be really a conflict. Or a developer. O'Donnell/You know, a lot of times, Ernie, that's good knowledge to bring to that board also. Lehman/Yeah. But one of the things with Mr. Brooks, that I look at, we need as much, I believe, input and understanding of the direction that the University is moving that we can. And not that this person is going to tell everybody on the Planning and Zoning Commission all their plans for the next 15 years for the University. But I think that his association with the University could be very valuable. I also am a little concerned. Right now, we have, I believe, four Planning and Zoning Commissioners from the same neighborhood. And although I don't know--Helen? Vanderhoef/Helen is North--- Lehman/I know. That is another established older neighborhood and I'm not so sure we need someone who I think--in reading this we have two, well, I think they're all good. But I think Brooks may have a broader perspective because of his association. Scott Claire is one who lives in the Peninsula Neighborhood--- Bailey/ Which is interesting. Lehman/...and who is absolutely convinced that that's a great project and loves the whole concept. Champion/Where does the guy from the University live? Lehman/I don't recall. Elliott/Quincet. Lehman/Oh, I think that is right. Elliott/Quincet Street. My question was where does Anna Buss live? Lehman/She lives on West Benton Street. Elliott/So that would be a west-side person. O'Donnell/Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 42 Lehman/Well--- O'Donnell/Which we don't have now. Vanderhoef/That's an older neighborhood, too. Lehman/It's an older neighborhood, bottom of Benton Street hill. Hey, we've got good folks here. Who do we want? Vanderhoef/Well, I'll go with Robert Brooks. I know we previously had a campus person on for many, many years, and there was very few times that the conflict of interest came up for him and he certainly was an asset for us. Wilbum/I know. Vanderhoef/So I would go with--- Champion/Yeah, I would too. I think--- Lehman/Are there four people who would go with Robert Brooks? Champion/Yes. Bailey/Mm-hmm. Lehman/All right. Elliott/Curses. Foiled again. (Laughter) O'Donnell/Drats. Go to the next one. Lehman/You know the sad part ofthis--- Elliott/There's some really good people. Lehman/That's the sad part is having--- Bailey/ Can we get them to apply for some other Commissions? Lehman/Yeah, sometimes we can and sometimes they just get disappointed and frustrated because they've not been appointed. Wilbum/Well, (can't hear) applied, I think a couple of times before--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 43 Bailey/For Parks and Rec. Wilburn/So he was willing to come back again. COUNCIL TIME Lehman/All right. Council time. Anybody have anything yet? O'Donnell/Welcome, Bob and Regenia. Lehman/Yes. Wilburn/Yes. Bailey/It's good to be here. O'Donnell/It's a pleasure. I think the talent is going to be good, and, Bob, I wanted to make sure I welcomed you. Elliott/Thank you. Atkins/Emie, can I ask a question for Council? Our Thursday work session is scheduled to begin at 8:00. Is that what you want? O'Donnell/Nine. (Laughter) Vanderhoef/When I'm awake. Lehman/Well, there has been some, there is some discussion as to whether or not we want to change that from 8:00 o'clock. If we want to change it from 8:00 to 8:02, or is this interest in changing it from 8:00 to 9:00? Atkins/It lets us set up and the number of things that we have to prepare so we just need to know when you're going to be there. Lehman/I hear an 8:30. O'Donnell/It sounds like a wonderful time to begin~ time to get up and--- Champion/You know, you're retired now, so some of us still have to work and 8:00 in the morning so we would get out of there. Well, I go to work late. I'm not saying I go to work at 8:00. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 44 Wilburn/We're out at the--- Lehman/Water plant. Atkins/Water plant. Wilburn/I guess I would ask 8:30 just to give me a little extra time to get out there from dropping my daughter off. Atkins/We really need you all there before we can get started so I want to pick a time to make sure that you can all be there. O'Donnell/Well, 9:00 o'clock to be sure, sounds fine. Elliott/You know, tell me the time, I'll be there. Lehman/8:45 we will start. O'Donnell/We're going to be there for eight hours. Champion/I'm not going to be there for eight hours. O'Dormell/I'm not either. Lehman/All right. 8:45 at the water plant. Atkins/And secondly, a number of you have been in and out of the office to meet Kathi Johansen. Lehman/Oh, she's a nice young lady. Atkins/She was in our Housing Department before coming over. So. Lehman/Very good. Atkins/Please make it a point to--- O'Donnell/Very nice. Lehman/OK. Champion/I just want to ask a question of Stephen, too. Steve, when we do the budget are you going to kind of do a quick (can't hear) change in form like you usually do? Atkins/What I intend to do is on the 13th will be mostly an overview and I'll be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004. January 5, 2004 Council Work Session Page 45 presenting to you. And I will identify where changes have been made so, yeah, you can focus your attention on those. In particularly, like Bob and I were talking about today, or repeat a little bit of the--we just did this six months ago, remember? So I'll kind of bring those back to just kind of remind you where they are. And then on the 15th, it'll be capital projects. So the 22nd and 27th are, in effect, open to you, and you will need to pick a time to talk about Boards and Commissions. But I'll bring that all to you on the 13th. Lehman/OK, guys. O'Donnell/Ernie? Lehman/Yes. O'Donnell/No, I'm through. It's just. Atkins/Are we done? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session Jan. 5, 2004.