HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-20 Transcription #2 Page 1
ITEM 2. STATE OF TIlE CITY MESSAGE
Lehman: Just an announcement, the State of the City message will be on the next meeting,
which will be February 3rd.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#3a Page 2
ITEM 3. MAYOR'S PROCLAMATION.
a. Women's Right to Choose
Lehman: The first, I will ask Regenia to read.
Kart: Here to accept the proclamation is Harriet Woodford, Health Coordinator, Emma
Goldman Clinic.
(applause)
Woodford: I'd like to thank the City Council and the Mayor for proclaiming January 22~d to
be Choice Day in Iowa City. I'd also like to invite you all, and everyone, to help
us celebrate on the actual date of the Roe v. Wade decision this Thursday night at
the 1MU for our annual Choice Dinner. Thank you very much.
Lehman: Thank you.
(applause)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#3b Page 3
ITEM 3. MAYOR'S PROCLAMATION.
b. Neighborhood Centers for Johnson County's 1st Community
Holiday Celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: January 17,
2004.
Kart: Here to accept the proclamation is Robert Walker, Broadway Neighborhood
Center Representative.
(applause)
Walker: And again, I'd like to thank the Mayor, and the City Council, and the Iowa City
community for recognizing the life and the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King.
Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Elliott: I would just like to say, anyone who has not been to the Martin Luther King
Center in Atlanta should do that some time. It's well worth the trip.
Lehman: I also would just add that we did have a program on Saturday at 2:00 at the
Broadway Neighborhood Center, and one of our members was the keynote
speaker. Ross I've heard speak at Council meetings, and I've heard him speak at
forums, but l've never heard Mr. Wilbum as a keynote speaker, and it was a
really, really outstanding event, so, it ~vas something I enjoyed. Something I
look forward to in the future years.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 4
ITEM 7c. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 119.94 ACRES FROM INTERIM
DEVELOPMENT 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) (FIRST
CONSIDERATION)
(1) Public Hearing
Lehman: Public hearing is open. This is continued from the 6th of January, and at the start
of the hearing, I should like to determine whether or not there are a majority of
Council who would like to remove the restrictions in the CZA that, relative to
garages, and replace them with a requirement that houses on lots of less than 60
feet, with garages, have a required set-back of 25 feet.
Vanderhoef: I'm interested in that.
O'Donnell: I am too.
Elliot~: Tell me that again, Emie.
Lehman: We eliminate the restrictions in the CZA, relative to garages, and instead insert a
requirement that any property built on a lot of less than 50 feet, be required to
have a set-back of 25 rather than 20 feet.
Bailey: 60 feet?
Lehman: Less than 60 feet.
Wilbum: In ~ny opinion, I guess l understand what you're attempting to get at, Ernie, but I
don't, I don't necessarily agree that this gets at the concern, the issue about the
entire scape depending on how the houses are laid together. In fact on the tour
we saw an example of how that may not get at that, so 1, I just don't know that
that gets at the issue about the residential flavor and character.
Champion: So you're willing to remove all the restrictions oa the garage, if it's another 5
foot back?
Vanderhoefi Yes.
Lehman: I think there's a larger issue here, Connie. I really, really commend the City staff
and the Planning and Zoning Commission for their concerns about the
appearance of neighborhoods, and I think we all share the same concerns, and I
think there is a very legitimate interest on the part of the City in protecting
neighborhoods, and I think we do that with set-back requirements, with height
restrictions, with set-backs from lot lines, and this sort of thing. I think we may
have crossed the line when we tell folks how their garage needs to look on the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 5
front of their house. I think by requiring a larger set-back, we recognize that
garages are not appreciated perhaps by everyone, and a dominant garage is less
dominant if it isn't quite as close to the street. But at the same time, if we give
folks the option of building what they choose to build on their property, and I
think this is so much an issue of aesthetics. I have a real problem with the City,
we as a city, legislating aesthetics for the people who live here.
Wilbum: And continuing on with that, and this is to all of Council, staff and Planning and
Zoning made their recommendation based on the comprehensive plan, and
principles within the comprehensive plan that talk about how something is laid
out can affect the residential character of the neighborhood, and so if we're not
going to go with that, it seems to me that they're, what are we going to do with
the comprehensive plan, and what guidance do ~ve give to staff and our
commission if we're going to abandon, or move away, from that? 1 guess I'd just
like to hear some comment about that.
Vanderhoef: Okay, I would like to make some comment on that. Certainly ! had some
questions about the agreement that we made for the Peninsula area that
incorporated some of these same kinds of standards of moving the houses close
to the street, and so forth, and I was assured every time that we talked about that
particular one, and then as we went through building the comprehensive plan,
and the overlay, the district overlays of the comprehensive plan, every time there
was something that I wasn't sure was appropriate, and it was put in there in a
broad way, I was assured that these are guidelines, these are not rules that we
have to "live by". That's on the comprehensive plan. Another thing that l
looked at very seriously when I went on the tour, and something that i observed
as I went past the built structures on the Peninsula, and it seems that our
standards for right-of-way have changed in the last few years in that them are
many more wires' and things that must go into that public right-of-way, which has
made it impossible to put street trees, as we have known them before, in that
section that we have of public right-of-way, between the street and sidewalk.
Then I looked at some of the pictures that were offered to us as, and sa~v
examples on the tour, of housing and no street trees. So today I had conversation
with the City forester because in my mind, a lot of the things that are happening
when the houses are so close to the street, and you can't put anything in but
ornamental trees because the space that's available on these narrow lots, I asked
specifically today, ! said if the houses were moved back another 5 feet, how
would this affect the kinds of trees that could thrive in the front yards, since
we're not going to be able to put street trees in the right-of-way, and off the top
of his head, he came up with four large kinds of trees that can be put in which
would help mask the height of these homes. To put thegn on small lots, they're
almost all going to be two-story houses, and certainly with only a small
ornamental in front, that doesn't mask or change or soften the size and the
appearance, and he gave me these four kinds of trees, and I said okay, now tell
me ~vhat size are we talking about at full growth on these particular trees, and he
said they will have a 30 foot spread and reach the height of 50 feet. Now to me,
that's the size of what we have always enjoyed up on the north side of Iowa City
in the older areas of the city, in that that was the size of our street trees and yes,
we had wider right-of-ways on some streets up there, but this to me is a very
good compromise with the appearance and how these soften and become into a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 6
neighborhood, and personally, after I've had this conversation and looked at it, I
don't know that we should be building any houses at 20 foot set-back, given what
we have to put in the right-of-way now.
Lehman: Ross, and also let me just say, I think that addressing the setback and requiring a
larger setback does at least refer somewhat to the comprehensive plan as well. i
mean, I think there is an indication that we do have a concern about this, and that
a larger setback, I ~vould probably go more than 25, but I think it does indicate
our concern about the livability of neighborhoods. I also, and we all read the
reports, but there's been a lot of discussion on this for a long time. Part of this
came from pedestrian-friendly, I believe was one of the other issues that was
cited. I do not concur that there is anything unfriendly to pedestrians from
walking down the sidewalk that crosses the driveway. I mean, I don't sense what
is unfriendly to pedestrians. We also have a society that tends to like privacy. If
you look at most homes, you find the family room's in the back of the homes.
They don't want family rooms in the front where the street is. They tend to live
in the back - on their patios, on their screened-in porches, and visit with their
neighbors across the fence. I don't find that to be an offensive sort of
neighborhood or an offensive sort of way to live, and I don't, I guess I don't quite
agree with that rationale for changing the character of the neighborhood.
Champion: Ernie, are you going to get rid of the part of the recommendations that allow the
garage to be whatever percent of the size of the house too?
Lehman: I don't recall which part of that. Well, let me just say this, my suspicion is that if
the requirement were, at 25 feet they can build the house. If they want to, my
guess is, they could work out a PDA, locate it at 20 feet, and do all of the things
that staff has asked for.
Champion: All right. What about...
Lehman: If they chose not to, they have to go back 25 feet.
Champion: If they go back 25 feet, are you going to eliminate the part of the
recommendation that suggested what percentage of the house could be garage?
Lehman: That's up to the Council.
Champion: So, I mean, you could have a house built beh nd a garage, if you're not...you
could have the whole front of the house could be garage, and the house could be
built behind the garage if you take all restrictions away.
O'Donnell: I doubt that that's likely to happen.
Champion: Well it's almost happening.
O'Donnell: Well, you know, I've owned a lot of houses and my garage has never been big
enough. It never has. We've moved into a time when most families have two
cars, and they've got riding mowers, and snowblowers, and what have you, and
it's nice to store those inside. If your covenants of the neighborhood won't let
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 7
you have an outbuilding, but I am not going to support anything that's going to
regulate the size of the garage. I just, I don't feel it's the City (can't understand)
to get into the design area of a house. You know, ultimately the buyer will
decide that.
Elliott: I have, excuse me, go ahead.
Bailey: Go ahead, Bob, really.
Elliott: I was just going to say that I have friends and people whom I greatly respect who
feel very strongly that this is a very good thing to do. I personally cannot say that
a design of house that is very popular in this and other cities, that we're going to
say "you can't have a house of that design", and it's simply because someone
doesn't like its appearance. I think if it's unsafe, if it's unattractive, those are two
entirely different things. I respect the people ~vho like this, ~vho want it, who
think it's a good thing, and I admire their pushing it forward, but I cannot vote
for something that negates something that is very popular, and people who do
have houses like this, feel very proudly about those houses, and say we aren't
going to allow that.
Bailey: When I looked at this I tried to set aside what I assumed people liked. And I also
tried to set aside what I Iike because I know that all kinds of people like all kinds
of different things. The two things that I tried to consider is where is the public
interest, and I believe that streetscape is public interest. When we took the tour
there is a different look, feel, appearance to neighborhoods that are
predominantly garage based, as opposed to those that have more house exposed,
and I don't know if it's pedestrian friendly, I don't know what the words are.
Additionally, I looked at the comprehensive plan, and specifically garage design
is mentioned in that south district plan, and I thought this got to that issue. On
narrow lots, not on all lots, but on narrow lots, garages were a concern. A large
garage base became a concern on a narrow lot, and I have concerns that if we set
aside, I know we're interpreting the comp plan a little bit differently each one of
us, but if we set aside this public process that indicated so much concern with
garage design in this particular district, I'm concerned about our public process
and what we're saying to people, and that was a diverse group of people. It
wasn't just one group that came together to develop that, and I'm concerned
about what it says about our public process, and how we're encouraging people
to be involved with that. So, 1, you know, I see what you're trying to do, Ernie,
but I don't think I can support it. I don't think it gets at it.
Wilbum: And in line with that, the other part that for me, was is there public interest in one
house, perhaps not, but the collective placement of them can impact that and gets
at the diversity and ali that was listed in there, so, but I guess, and apparently this
is going to go forward, we need to, I still think this leaves a problem with how
the comprehensive plan is implemented by our staff and by our commission,
because we can make this real, I mean, we can have a conditional zoning
agreement and make all kinds of complicated things with it, but how do you from
case, to case, to case, break that down so that it's understandable and a simpler
plan?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 8
Lehman: Is there anyone in the public who wishes to speak to this?
O'Donnell: Evidently not, oh...
Marcus: My name is Rita Marcus and I'm the President of the Iowa City Area Association
of Realtors. I appreciate the opportunity to present our statement this evening,
and to have it entered into the record. To the City Council of Iowa City, from the
Iowa City Area Association of Realtors, regarding the Sandhill Estates design
standards --- The Iowa City Area Association of Realtors wishes to comment on
the proposed mandate on the Sandhill projects, requiring garages be placed in
specific locations in single-family homes. The iowa City Area Association of
Realtors feels that such mandates are unnecessary, prohibitive, and restrictive on
consumer's rights to build a house. The City should not be in the business of
telling consumers how their home should look. Realtors want to provide the best
possible service when it comes to serving the consumer. We feel the consumer
knows what is best for them. Such mandates do not improve the security of the
property, or the safety of its occupants. The proposed changes do not promote
the marketability of the house. The proposed changes do not reduce the cost of
the new house construction, nor do they increase the options a consumer has in
creating their house. In addition, the proposed changes do not make it easier for
the elderly or disabled to live a more capable life. Ultimately the mandates
proposed by the City appear to be rooted in aesthetics or how a certain few feel
the future development of Iowa City should be shaped. Friendly people often
disagree on what is considered attractive. However, the consumer ultimately
drives housing desirability based on factors such as aesthetics and functionality.
The City should take into consideration the precedence this mandate will
establish. The precedence will have far reaching affects on the future of the City,
and how development occurs. Those who will benefit most from such mandates
are the neighboring communities, whose design standards incorporate the
flexibility consumers want. Building a tax base and growing the local economy
should be the top priority for Iowa City. These design standards for Sandhill
Estates are being considered for implementation for the entire City as the City's
development code is being revised. Please carefully weigh whether this is a good
idea for Sandhill Estates, good for Iowa City, and good for the consumer. Thank
you on behalf of the Iowa City Area Association of Realtors.
Lehman: Thank you.
Holland: I'll try and live within the five minute rule but I'll warn you I may be back again
tonight.
Lehman: 1'11 help ya. (laughter)
Holland: I know you will, I know you will. (laughter) And I'll try and avoid being
repetitive, things that have already been said by myself or others in the last
couple of weeks. It's really important, I think, to keep in mind all the positives
that have been accomplished in this. We tend to focus on the problems rather
than the positives. The whole concept that's driving this entire development, is
preserving the prairie. Without that, you wouldn't have lots the size they are.
The open space in this area is, the required open space is 2.6 acres. There's
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 9
actually something over 20 acres if you take into account the open spaces
provided, plus the prairie. The applicant has worked out every issue with the
City staff, save this one dilemma, these garage design standards. And the fact of
the matter is, nobody, not Southgate, no one in this room, knows what's going to
be built out there because a lot of these lots are going to be sold on the open
market. Those determinations are being made by builders other than the
developer of this property. A lot of those determinations being made by the
homeowners that want to buy those properties. What they're willing to put down
their money for. What they want to live in, and in a way, that's the essence of
the majority of the community deciding what aesthetics are about, not me, not the
Council, not the staff, but letting those people who are going to live in these
neighborhoods and be affected by those, decide that. The design of these houses
is a nationwide phenomenon, and you have a memo from Karin Franklin who I
think misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say I'm not concerned about issues like
this here, and that we shouldn't be concerned about that, but there's good masons
why this development is occurring nationwide. This really is about keeping
choices open and letting people build the most house they can get for their dollar.
Consider some of the neighborhoods that everybody thinks now are so desirable,
on the near east side of Iowa City. The Longfellow neighborhood, the
Governor/Dodge area, those neighborhoods could not be built today. The lots are
too narrow. Some of those lots are as narrow as 30 feet but they have a full size
house on it. There are all sorts of restrictions there. The lots are too small.
There's too much bulk. Too much house on the lot. They're not set back far
enough. There are no side yards. People love those. Those were built in a time
when there weren't all kinds of overlays, city regulations. Those were market-
driven houses. A lot of those were built prior to 1926 which is when Iowa City
adopted its first zoning ordinance. Now people love those. You have to let
things kind of seek their own level, and look at some of the houses that staff
points to as examples of what can be done on what they call small lots. In
Southpoint in Io~va City or out in Coralville, those developed without these
development restrictions, what they like and what they see out there, happened
without the kinds of restrictions they're asking you to put into place. Now
there's this one paragraph in the south district plan which keeps getting quoted.
You know, that's a wonderful document because there's something in it for
everybody. It's like the comp plan - there's something in it for everybody.
People tend to look at what they want to see out of it, and then decide that that's
where they're going to make their stand. I want to talk a little bit about the
Duncan Report. Development regulations analysis, prepared at the City's
bequest in conjunction with the City staff, it also has citizen input. They went
out and talked to various segments of the community. Actually pulled them in
for interviews. They say some interesting things, and I wanted to just a minute,
read a couple quotes out of this. There's a section on housing affordability and
development costs. This is a quote: "Two of the city's stated objectives in
commissioning this study were to identify, one, regulatory barriers to the
provision of afIbrdable housing; and two, methods to reduce development costs.
The City's regulations do not appear to overburden the market's ability to
provide aflbrdable housing or unduly restrict residential and non-residential
development opportunities. However, one barrier to the provision of affordable
housing may be the City's relative lack of vacant land zoned for higher density
single-family and muIti-family development." That's the kind of development
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 10
we're talking about here. "And in Iowa City, as in many communities, there is
often strong resistance to establishing such zoning." And you do hear a lot of
that. And people trot out the comp plan, they trot out the south district plan,
because it gives them the tools they need to oppose this. And before my five
minutes are up, Mr. Mayor, I want to read a couple more...
Lehman: You still got a minute and a half.
Holland: I don't like to talk this fast. (laughter) One of these I wanted talk....what is a
small lot? And I think you have to understand this in some context, the garage
design standards come out of this Duncan Report. There's a whole section in
here, garage standards. They talk about this a little bit. The plan, the
comprehensive plan, recommends reducing front yard set-backs, bringing houses
closer to the street, so houses can be placed closer to residential streets. All of
the RS zones now have a minimum front set-back requirement of 20 feet. We
concur with the plans recommendation that front yard set-backs of less than 20
feet along local residential streets be considered. It goes on to say the
comprehensive plan supports reduction in lot widths, with standards to
accommodate more compact development that consumes less land, makes it
possible to provide public improvements such as streets, sewers, and water lines,
more efficiently. If the City is interested in accommodating smaller lot, detached
single-family townhouses and zero lot line development, lot width and frontage
standards, will need to be adjusted. This is ~vhat I found most interesting. The
narrowest lot width allowed in the City's residential districts is 40 to 45 feet,
which is too wide to accommodate, too wide to accommodate, most all
townhouse development, and may be excessive for some small lot, single-family
detached development, particularly when garage access comes from the alley.
We're talking about lots that average 52 feet in width, and they're saying that 40
to 45 foot lots may be excessive in width. This, I say this in part to illustrate, you
can take away from these comprehensive plans, these district plans, really
whatever you'd like and you can turn it whatever direction you'd like. The real
issues here, how much control is the City going to exert over the aesthetic and
design of housing? I'm going to stop now and I'll come back. Thank you.
(laughter)
Lehman: Anyone else who would like to speak...go ahead.
Quigley: Hi, my name is Jim Quigley, and I live in the, on 915 Pepper Drive in the
Pepperwood Neighborhood. One of, I was going to actually talk about a couple
other things about the, you know, I was going to agree with Ross. It's really
about making the neighborhood maintain its residential character. I mean, I love
downtown Iowa City. I work downtown, but I can tell in one second that I'm
downtown. One of the things I thought was interesting, a couple days ago when I
was driving along Pepper Drive, which is where I live, every house in my
neighborhood is a 2-car garage, and despite that, there are cars parked, we can
only park on one side, but I think one of the things that I noticed in looking at
some of the pictures is there's no place for offstreet parking. And so, one of the
questions I wondered about is maybe, you know, the issue of compromise in
terms of going from 20 feet to 25 maybe another way to compromise it is that
instead of saying it all has to be one way or the other, you say okay one side of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 11
the street has to be, has to you know follow these standards, and maybe the other
side doesn't, or you do something else. You maybe change the mix from 100%,
which is what the City staff wants, to zero which is what the developer wants,
and maybe do a compromise in those ways, because I do think that instead of
talking about pedestrian friendly, because you know downtown is pedestrian
friendly, I think, and there's not always parking, ls there's no, there won't be
any offstreet parking, and I'm a little bit concerned about when people want to go
to look at the sand prairie. You know, where you going to park? I used to live in
Grant Wood and I used to take my dog over to the Whispering Meadows area,
and there was always just enough parking along the side, the houses near the
Whispering Meadows, so I could park my car and walk my dog, and I kind of
wonder about how that's all going to shake down. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Moore: Hi, I'm Dave Moore and I'm at 425 Davenport Street. l just had a question. I
didn't fully understand the proposal that you brought up, Mr. Lehman, but if you
tonight override the conditions that Planning and Zoning sent forward, then, are
you going to vote on that tonight?
Lehman: No.
Moore: Oh, you're not going to vote on the discussion that you were having previously
tonight? Okay.
Lehman: There will be an indication from Council. If the majority of the Council wishes
to change the conditional zoning agreement, staff will rewrite that agreement,
and if the Council is amenable, we will continue the public hearing until
Thursday at 1:00, close the public hearing, and have first consideration at that
point.
Moore: Okay, so you would vote on the proposal this coming Thursday?
Lehman: Right.
Moore: And there would be a public hearing...
Lehman: We would continue the public hearing, tonight's public hearing, until that date.
You cannot close a public hearing without a signed, conditional zoning
agreement.
Moore: I see.
Lehman: Nor can you vote on it until it's a signed agreement.
Moore: Okay.
Lehman: Process issues.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 12
Moore: So it doesn't wait until two weeks from now when the normal Tuesday City
Council meeting would be? For the public hearing, like there was one two weeks
ago and now there's one today relative to this issue, and there...
Lehman: Actually the one two weeks ago would have been closed that night had Council
agreed with the recommendation from Planning and Zoning. We would have had
first consideration. We could have had second consideration tonight.
Moore: Oh, okay, i think I understand.
Lehman: Okay.
Moore: Yeah, the only thing I would say is that I would hope that if the proposal is
shifted in this way, that you should make accessible, in terms of as much public
hearing as possible, in light of the fact that it's sort of shifted it a different
direction, and because of so much work done by so many people involved, it
might be good to keep the public hearing open as much as possible, and as long
as possible.
Vanderhoef: Dave, the other piece of doing it on Thursday is the fact that the Mayor is going
to be out of town, and then I go out of town, and we want the entire Council here
to vote when we do vote on this issue.
Champion: The other thing I do agree with, though, I think that Thursday at 1:00 is not a
good time to continue a public hearing when most people have to work, and
people who may want to comment on what I consider is a major change, will not
be able to comment on it. So are we going to continue the public hearing to the
February 3rd Council meeting?
Lehman: We could do it...or to the 22nd, which is a week from tonight, and a regular
Tuesday night. We could do that.
Champion: Yeah, because I think it's important that people...to me this is a major change in
what people thought was going to happen out there, and I think we owe it to the
public to be able to respond to it.
Moore: Thank you. ! would agree with you, Connie, on that. February 3rd might be a...
Champion: Thank you. Or it'd be when, January what?
Lehman: Well the 22'~d we have a meeting, a week from tonight.
Karr: The 7th, or the 27a~?
Lehman: The 7th, I'm sorry.
Champion: The 27th, it would be continued to the 27* of January.
Moore: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 13
Atkins: Emie, excuse me for interrupting, but i thought you said Thursday, the 22"~.
Lehman: I did, but if we, if Council would prefer it to be on the 27th, obviously
whatever....is fine.
Atkins: Okay, I just wanted to...
Rohrbach: Good evening, I'm Steve Rohrbach. I'm a principle with the architectural firm of
Rohrbach Carlson here in Iowa City, and Lynn's handing out a little exhibit that
we want to discuss ~vith you tonight that hopefully will help clarify and elaborate
on the issues concerning the garage-forward, split-level home design Southgate
Companies is proposing, and as one of their design options for the Sandhill
Development. I'll try to get through this quickly. I'm going to address three
issues. Cost, the siding of the house on the site, and aesthetics. And I'm going to
refer to the first exhibit for page 1 of that. The garage-forward home has come
into existence because of the need buyers have to purchase homes that are more
efficient and economical. The garage-forward home accomplishes this by the
integration of the garage into the structure of the house. The garage is built into
and under the second floor of the home, making the home more efficient and
economical. Only 8% of the design you see there is used in stairways and in
hallways. That's tremendous. When you apply the proposed City design
standards to the proposed model home, it requires the garage to move backwards
or the adjacent living area to move forward as modules beside themselves. These
modules as you can see in that number one exhibit, cannot easily be moved
because of the center stair that connects them together, and that also the adjacent
area, next to the stair and back of the garage. The moving of these modules will
make the stair and hallway less efficient, take living area away from the home, or
add unneeded square footage to the home. Our review of the City design
standards to four of the Southgate proposed model homes, establishes an average
increase of 120 square feet on 1,600 square foot home, which would relate to an
average increase of 8% on the cost of the home. In the design of these model
homes, the garage side of the home is longer than the living side of the home, and
with the home efficiency circulates, the living area side of the home always sets
back from the face of the garage. With this as an inherit design situation, the cost
of the homes will be further increased because of the requirement that this set-
back include a covered porch. The combination of the increased square footages
and the addition of the porch, will increase the average home upwards to 10%.
Champion: But you wouldn't be doing both of those things at the same time.
Rohrbach: I'm just suggesting that if we move it closer to the street it's going to add square
footage to the home.
Champion: Right, I understand.
Rohrbach: So if we assume an average home price if $175,000, that would increase it to
$192,500. Siding of the home, and I'd like you to refer to page two of the
handout. Of the lot sizes at the Sandhill Development that are less than 60 feet,
and as Joe said, 52 is the most common size. There are some 50 foot lots which
we have used in our example on exhibit two of the handout. This drawing is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 14
being shown to help clear up misconceptions concerning placement and design of
the home on the lot. You can see from the site plan that the proposed set-back
from the proper~y line is the 20 feet that Ernie's been talking about, and you can
visually see where the drives and walks will be and the area that would be left for
green space. The dark dotted line in front of the lower left portion of the home is
where the City design standards would place the front wall and front porch of the
home (tape ends) available for use and landscaping by 5 feet. And because of
how the interior of the home must function and circulate with the center stair, the
backyard cannot be increased, the amount the front yard is being decreased. Our
concern is that ~vith the City's proposed 15 foot utility easement in the front yard
of the home, and this kind of goes along with what Dee was talking about, if the
home does not set back as originally planned, there will be little room left for any
sizeable landscaping. Knowing that we can't put sizeable landscaping in utility
easements. The overall affect on the site Mil be a decrease in green space. Page
three, please, is aesthetics.
Lehman: You need to wind this up.
Rohrbach: Aesthetics as you know are subjective, so what we have tried to do in exhibit
three is demonstrate on the existing homes on Irving Avenue. This is a street that
the City Planning Department referred to as how the garage-forward homes
would look on Sandhill. And we've shown how the houses would change based
on the design standards. To be fair in the exhibit, we're showing three exhibits
on this sheet. The top is a photograph of Irving Avenue, the center drawing is
just a rendering of that so that it is depicted the way the lower rendering is, which
shows the houses changed to reflect the exterior wail being moved closer to the
garage, the addition of the porch, and the reduction of the width of the garage to
less than half of the width of the house. It is apparent to us from this exercise
that the design standards do little to mitigate the appearance of the garage from
the front of the house. Further design standards would impact the relief the
garage-forward home has on the front yard, street scape, and the amount of green
space available in the front yard for use. We feel other more economical
solutions like Randall Arendt's suggestion for painting the garage door and trim
the same color as the house, or as Dee said, the use of more larger landscaping in
the front of the home, would do much more to mitigate this issue than the City
design standards.
Lehman: Shouldn't have shown us this. I really like the bottom one. (laughter) Thank
you.
O'Donnell: I like all three of them.
Lehman: Yes. Okay. Joe, did you have...oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, no, no, ma'am, please,
you're next.
Bouska: I'm Amy Bouska and ! live in the Pepperwood Neighborhood Association. I'm
also a member of Concerned Citizens for Sand Prairie Preservation. This has
been a long journey. We've traveled a lot of miles together. I, along with a lot
of my neighbors, we've met with Southgate, we've met with the City, and I think
that what you see today is a lot better, is a plan that much better represents the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 15
intention of the South District Plan. This process has been about compromise,
and I think compromise on both sides. I think it's fair to say that we would have
liked to see more of the pasture area preserved. I think it's fair to say that we
would have liked to have seen a plant inventory done on the acres that were to be
preserved, just so that we knew that the areas to be preserved would be the best
possible restoration. But thls process it's about compromise, and we understand
that. Personally, I think there should be some design standards here. This is a
large development. It's one of the largest ones that the City has seen in a long
time. Maybe what you're proposing will be a step in the right direction. I guess
we'll find out. ! guess one thing I do want to do, I think you should commend
Southgate for bringing in Randall Amdt, to introduce a new type of design to this
community. I think it's outstanding that they brought them in, and 1 hope that we
can see those standards come through in other developments. I guess the other
question I have is the person before me spoke about some of Randall's
suggestions of painting the trim, or painting the garage, and also looking at, what
was the other thing? The trim you talked about was Randall's suggestion, and
what was the other one? Trees. I was just curious if those would be some things
that come along with some of the building design standards that, or some of the
things that we'll see. Those will be some questions or things that we'd, or I
guess I'd like to see, personally. So anyway, I really think you should commend
Southgate for bringing in Randall and hopefully we'll see him back here in lowa
City.
Lehman: And in all fairness, I think we have to commend the City staff and Southgate.
They worked really, put in (can't hear) effort on putting this together, I mean,
there's been a lot of work put in.
Bouska: Absolutely, absolutely.
Holland: My name is Del Holland. I live at 1039 E. College Street. I come to you as a
member of Environmental Advocates ~vho has for a long time watched the City,
and encouraged the City, to look at changing its attitudes toward urban design,
and we were part of bringing Randall Arendt here. I think many years ago, and
had invited both City Council members and the Johnson County Board of
Supervisors to meetings with Randall to see the kinds of ideas he had. And I
guess as a member of Environmental Advocates and as a part of that process for
a long time, I do appreciate the eftbrts of the City Council, and the Planning and
Zoning Committee, and the staff, to work out an agreement for this area, which
increases the density there, and preserves a significant amount of green space.
And I appreciate the stafff s compromises on a number of issues over the regular
zoning for this thing, and ! guess I also want to speak to the fact that I think that
the majority of the City maybe has represented their view through the input into
the comprehensive plan and to the south overlay area, and I ~vant you to
remember that, even though those people aren't showing up here tonight
necessarily, but you've got a lot of input to those kinds of ideas, and the staff has
tried to represent that to you, and I think it's important to follow it the way
they're recommending it. So, I would encourage you to be careful about this just
5 feet of set-back as a replacement for limiting those snout-nose garages because
I think it will make a very unfriendly area for people to live in.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 16
Lehman: Thank you.
Holland: I guess I want to start by picking up where the last speaker left off about how the
City's guidance in planning matters is crafted, and I think probably if you look at
who's voting on what should happen in Iowa City, really the majority of people
~vho vote are the people that buy houses, they buy places to live, they work and
live in the community. If you've ever been to any of these meetings that craft
these plans, the South District Plan or the comp plan, that's probably 35 to 50
people at most who have input into it. I don't know if that's the majority of the
community speaking. I think a bigger majority of the community speaks in the
~vay they choose to live in this community, and as I said ! think those historic
neighborhoods that are built up are a part of the same kind of process of the sort
of the users of the community, the citizens, choosing how they want to live, and
with that, I think that where I kind of want to end this is, there's a lot of
conjecture about what these standards will accomplish. Nobody really knows.
You've seen Steve Rohrbach's architectural renderings. You've heard staff.
You've heard other people comment on that, but when you don't know what
something accomplishes, and you want to avoid the law of unintended
consequences, you need to be careful before you impose restraints upon
consumers based upon conjecture and speculation. You ought to be careful about
imposing standards. Before you know they really do have broad spread support
in the community. You have to be careful about imposing restrictions before you
know that they'll even accomplish what they're promoted to do. I think it makes
more sense at this juncture to consider some of the less restrictive alternatives,
also less costly. I think, there's no problem, I think, on the part of the developer
agreeing to additional set-back. I think another 5 feet is something that the
company (can't hear) sign in an instant. I also think the company would agree to
paint those garage doors the same color as the principle color of the house. I
think both of those would help produce some of the result you want to achieve,
and be yet another compromise in trying to work through this process. I want to
start where I began. This really, 1 think, it's been an evolutionary process
through the work of the sand prairie people, through Southgate, through the staft;
through a lot of good people and a lot of hard effort. You know, I look around
the room and I have friends here but on the opposite side of the issue from me,
and somebody said good people can disagree on things, and I think that's
absolutely true. That's another reason I think you move cautiously when you're
treading in to these kinds of issues. What we're asking you to do is to strike that
paragraph 3.B. from the conditional zoning agreement in its entirety and replace
it with something along the lines we talked about tonight that I think is more
community-friendly, and certainly from the standpoint of the developer, far more
workable step toward what you want to accomplish. And I think you've heard
from many other people, and I think that's about all I have to say.
Lehman: Joe, I have a question. If we were to make something as simple as painting the
garage trim the same as the house, what happens when somebody buys that
house, and 8 years later they want to change the color of the trim around their
garage door?
Holland: I think what, ! don't think Randall Arendt was talking about the trim. I think he
was talking about having the garage door painted the color of the house.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 17
Lehman: What if somebody wants to change that 10 years after they buy the house? It's
their house.
Holland: Well that's I think like any.., if you build that under conditional zoning
agreements, like any City ordinance, somebody has to enforce that. If they want
to change the color of the house, they've got to change the color of the garage
door.
Lehman: Which means someone who buys the house can't change the color of the door
because it's against City code?
Holland: Unless they change the color of the whole house.
Lehman: Right, thanks.
Holland: And they can't move the garage once it's built either. (laughter)
Lehman: I don't think the chances of moving the garage are nearly as great as painting the
door.
Holland: Whenever you impose some sort of regulation, people have to live by it.
O'Donnell: You could just leave the door open. (laughter)
Holland: You know, my father lives in Florida, and in Florida they open up the garage
door and they have these screen walls with doors in them. They use entire
garages, another room in the house during the summer months, and it's not
popular in this part of the country, but it's tremendously popular in the South,
and it does become living space for part of the year.
Lehman: Thank you, Joe. We need a motion to continue, now, I think Connie's suggestion
is a good one that perhaps it would be better if we continued the public hearing to
a regular meeting night rather than a 1:00 in the afternoon. I think as far as the
public being able to come here.
O'Donnell: I don't have a problem with that.
Dilkes: Before you continue the hearing though, we need to know, both staff and
Southgate, need to know what conditions the majority of you wish to impose so
that we can get a conditional zoning agreement drafted.
Lehman: All right, we will get that. Let's...what is the wishes of the Council?
O'Donnell: Ernie, I'm ready to go with your proposal. I think it's reasonable. 1 really do not
feel we should get into designing somebody's home, and ultimately the buyer
should determine what they want built on their lot. And, like I said, I've had
many homes and never had a garage door big enough so I can't imagine ever
supporting controlling the size of the garage. So that's where ! stand on it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 18
Lehman: So what you're saying is that we strike paragraph 3.B., which is that paragraph
referring to garages, and replace it with the requirement that on lots of less than
60 feet, their set-back be a minimum of 25 feet?
O'Donnell: That sounds great.
Lehman: That I think is where we are. Are there other...
Vanderhoefi That's where I am.
Lehman: Eleanor, do you have that?
Dilkes: Ihn ......Marian's getting...
O'Donnell: Do you need a show of hands, Ernie?
Lehman: Well, Elliott, O'Donnell, Lehman, and Vanderhoef have indicated an interest in
striking paragraph 3 and replacing it with a stipulation that on lots of less than 60
feet, the set-back must be 25 rather than 20 feet. Is that correct?
Vanderhoefi Correct.
Elliott: I just want my colleagues on the Council who differ with this to understand I
certainly respect their differences and those ~vho have come before the Council
before. The planning staff, Planning and Zoning Commission, I think this is one
of those times when someone said good people can disagree.
Lehman: All right, relative to the date for the meeting.
Champion: I'd like to move to continue the public hearing to January 27th.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second to continue the hearing. All in favor? Opposed?
Karr: Excuse me, time? Because you've got...
Lehman: 6:30.
O'Donnell: Are we talking coming in early or ~vhat?
Lehman: The meeting is scheduled for 7:00. The special meeting could be at 6:30.
Karr: No, the meeting is scheduled for 6:30.
Lehman: Oh, oh, oh, oh. Time folks?
Champion: Why is that? 1 don't remember...
Kan': Well we originally had scheduled it for budget deliberations 6:30 to 9.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 19
Lehman: Is there any difficulty with having a special meeting at 6:30?
Kart: Well the only difficulty ~vould be that you have requested the boards and
commissions come, and some of them can come after 7. They had previous
commitments, so 1 don't, I can't speak for all of them, but they have indicated
that they have some scheduling issues. Now, could they come later...?
Champion: I'd like to withdraw my motion.
Lehman: Why?
Champion: Because I think it ought to be scheduled on a regular City Council night, and
that's what I thought we were talking about. I didn't have my calendar here.
O'Donnell: So you're talking February 3rd?
Bailey: February 3~d.
Karr: Is that your 2nd as well or not?
Elliott: I think it needs to be at a time when all members of the Council are hem. This is
something that in the whole measure of our city, I'm not sure how important it is,
but it is important to a lot of people and I think it deserves the entire Council
voting on it.
O'Donnell: I agree.
Champion: Everybody will be here February 3rd.
Dilkes: Well remember you have two more readings after that.
Lehman: Are people comfortable with February 3rd?
Vanderhoefi 1'11 withdraw my second.
Lehman: That may very well require that there be a special meeting, which is no problem,
but is there, what, do we have a motion to defer to February 3rd?
(2) Consider an Ordinance
O'Donnell: I would move to defer this to February 3'd.
Champion: I'll second.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second. Discussion?
Atkins: Ernie, may I... ?
Lehman: Yes you may.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7c Page 20
Atkins: Just to make sure we understand that by show of hands, consensus, you're asking
that the developer's agreement, conditional zoning agreement, be changed and
that we will, Eleanor will take what you said, amend that, and that's what will
come back to you at the meeting of the 3rd.
Lehman: That's correct.
Atkins: And the hearing will remain open until that evening, assuming that the developer
would sign it, close it, and you've had a first reading.
Lehman: Correct.
Atkins: That's the process. Okay.
Dilkes: And, just so we're clear, special meetings, if you want the whole Council here to
vote, we'll be required to get those second and third readings in.
O'DonnelI: That's fine.
Lehman: I think we understand that. I think perhaps the first reading is the most important
reading. We'll close the public hearing at that point. The next meeting will be
after the close of the public hearing. All in favor of deferral indicate by saying
aye. Opposed?
Karr: We're continuing the public hearing...
Lehman: Continuing...
O'Donnell: To February 3~d.
Lehman: Now do we have a motion to defer item 2 which is consideration of the
ordinance?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell to defer item 2 to February 3rd.
All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoefto accept correspondence. All in
favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7d Page21
ITEM 7d. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE 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) (SECOND
CONSIDERATION).
Vanderhoef: Move second consideration.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Champion: Ernie, would you kindly give a capsule of what we're voting on here. I think
there are some problems the public has with this.
Lehman: Actually I'm going to ask Karin to do that because she can probably explain that
better than I can.
Franklin: I'm sorry, what did you need? A capsule? (laughter)
Champion: A capsule. What we're actually voting on.
Franklin: This is amending the zoning in that area to a planned development which will
allow 78 dwelling units that are in multi-family dwellings and in duplexes. That
changes it from a previous zoning in which it was RFBH and there were
manufactured housing units in the same area. It goes from 66 manufactured
housing units to 78 units in a configuration of multi-family buildings and
duplexes, primarily duplexes.
Champion: And we're actually vote on land use here? Isn't that correct?
Franklin: Yes, definitely.
Lehman: Okay, thank you.
Vanderhoefi Karin, this increase that we keep talking about. I'm not sure that everyone is
clear that the 68 was what was planned for the area.
Franklin: 66.
Vanderhoef: Or 66, and then 12 more have been added to this to make a total of 78 all new
units for the land.
Franklin: Correct.
Vanderhoef: So, when we were talking about it earlier it just seemed like a comment was that
we're only adding 12 new units.
Franklin: Oh, no.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#7d Page 22
Vanderhoef: And so I wanted to be real clear.
Franklin: 78 all, 78 new units, and the difference between the original plan for 66 units and
the 78 units is 12.
Lehman: Yeah, I think that's key that this will allow an additional 12.
Franklin: Correct.
Vanderhoef: But a total of 78 are coming in that will be using that street.
Lehman: Well there were 66 anyway. So there's an additional 12.
Vanderhoefi Yeah, I agree, I agree.
Franklin: Right, only an additional 12.
Lehman: Okay. Discussion?
Elliott: I think Council expressed earlier that many of us have received, certainly I have
received concerns, expressions of concern, by a number of people, and it is I
guess touching, but I think that, my understanding, that's something about which
we're not voting on and so my vote will not represent any response to those
concerns. It will not, and as I understand it, cannot.
Lehman: You know, Bob, I think you're right. The concerns that we have had are most of
them have been relative to the homeowner's association agreement over which
we have no authority. Other discussion? Roll call. Motion cames.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Vanderhoef: So moved.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Motioned by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell to accept correspondence. All
in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. We've been asked to take a short recess,
folks. We'll be back in about...
(TAPE OFF)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#8 Page 23
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 DEVELOMENT CODE," CHAPTER 3,
"CITY UTILILTIES, ARTICLE G, "STORM WATER
COLLECTION, DISCHARGE AND RUNOFF," TO CREATE A
STORMWATER UTILITY AND ESTABLISH A STORMWATER
UTILITY FEE. (PASS & ADOPT)
Champion: Move to defer item 8.
O'Donnell: To February 3rd.
Champion: To February 3rd.
Lehman: Just a moment, I think someone from the audience would like...do I need to read
this?
Karr: You just need to complete the motion to put it on the floor.
Lehman: We need a motion to...
Kart: Moved by Champion.
Champion: Move to defer to February 8th.
Elliott: Second.
Champion: Third.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second. Now, someone from the public would like to
speak to the motion to defer.
Guard: Yes, Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is Pat Guard. I'm with the Iowa City
Area Chamber of Commerce, and we are asking that you defer this until the next
time around. We have been working, the Chamber through one of their
communities, has been working with City staff to address the issue and come up
with a little bit different proposal which we want to present to our Board to make
it official. Our Board meets this Thursday. I'm sorry we couldn't meet before
tonight. And we will present that proposal to you immediately after that meeting.
I do want to say one thing, that staff has been excellent to work with. We have
met a number of times with staff and they've been very helpful and very
supportive of working some things out. Thank you for your consideration.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#8 Page 24
Wilburn: (can't hear) it's related to the stormwater utility fee, for people that are watching.
Lehman: Right.
Champion: Did I say the right date, February 3rd?
Lehman: February 3fa. Ail in favor of the deferral signify by saying aye. Opposed?
Motion carries.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Motioned and seconded to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed.
Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#9 Page 25
ITEM 9. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE
CITY CODE, ENTITLED "USE OF PUBLIC WAYS AND
PROPERTY," TO CREATE A UNIFORM PERMITTING
PROCESS, TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
FARMERS MARKET, TO PROVIDE FOR THE
NONCOMMERCIAL PLACEMENT OF OBJECTS IN CITY
PLAZA ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, TO MODIFY THE
PROVISION ON RESIDENTIAL PICKETING, TO CLARIFY THE
CURRENT PROVISIONS REGULATING MOBILE VENDORS
AND AMBULATORY VENDORS, TO CODIFY SPECIFIC
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AFFECTING SAID VENDORS, AND
TO MAKE ADDITIONAL NONSUBSTANTIVE CHANGES.
(FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Champion: Move to defer to 2/3/04.
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: We have a motion by Champion, a second by Bailey to defer to February 3~d
meeting. All in favor?
Elliott: Ernie?
Lehman: Yes?
Bailey: I would also like to add the possibility of some public comments at this February
Bra meeting. ! know that that's not required but...
Champion: We always allow it.
Bailey: ...free speech issues, and I think that would be a good thing.
Lehman: Regenia, I have always, I don't think I've ever refused to let anybody speak
publicly at a meeting, and we will certainly take public input at that point.
Bailey: Great.
Lehman: Did we vote? All in favor of the deferral? Opposed? Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#10 Page 26
ITEM 10. 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. (SECOND
CONSIDERATION)
Champion: Move second consideration.
Wilburn: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion?
Champion: I would just like to point out to the four members of the Council that this is an
area where we do control a lot of design. (laughter)
Lehman: Actually, it's the actions of our predecessors who are controlling that design.
(laughter) Roll call. Motion carries.
O'Donnell: I'm one of the four and ! certainly appreciate that. (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#14 Page 27
ITEM 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A REVISED
SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CItARGES FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION SERVICES AND PROGRAMS.
Champion: Move the resolution.
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Champion: Does this take three readings?
O'Donnell: No, it's a resolution.
Lehman: Is there any discussion? Roll call.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#15 Page 28
ITEM 15. CONSIDER A RESOL1JTION AMENDING TIlE BY-LAWS OF
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
Lehman: We'd like a motion to defer to the February 3rd.
Vanderhoefi So moved.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Champion. All in favor? Opposed?
Motion carries.
Karr: Mr. Mayor, for the record, the Rules Committee will be meeting on this at 12:45
on Thursday.
Lehman: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#16 Page 29
ITEM 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION NAMING THE WATERWORKS
PARKLAND "WATERWORKS PRAIRIE PARK".
O'Donnell: So moved.
Vanderhoefi Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Champion: It'll be one of the largest urban prairies in the state. That's pretty neat.
Lehman: Roll call.
Dilkes: We need to go back to 15. I don't think you ever deferred it.
Lehman: Yeah we did.
Champion: Yeah we did.
Dilkes: No, you didn't vote on it I don't think.
O'Donnell: We didn't vote on it?
Lehman: We didn't vote?
Kart: All those in favor? (laughter)
Dilkes: Marian didn't have it down here so that means you didn't vote. (laughter)
Lehman: We're not going to ask for an instant replay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#17a Page 30
ITEM 17. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.
a. SEATS Paratransit Advisory Committee
Lehman: Vanderhoefand O'Donnell served on that committee, and currently serve. Their
term expires on the 30th of June? Is that something we need...
O'Donnell: Dee's is 04, mine's in 05.
Karr: Just reaffirm if there's no changes.
Lehman: Oh, all right. Are we satisfied with the representation? Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
# 17b Page 31
ITEM 17. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.
b. East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG)
Lehman: Ross Wilburn currently serves a term which has expired on the 31st of...
Vanderhoef: No, it will expire.
Lehman: It will, it's got another year. Ross, are you...content with that?
Wilburn: Sure.
Lehman: Is that acceptable to Council?
Vanderhoefi Fine.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#17c Page 32
ITEM 17. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.
c. Chief Elected Official- Work Force Development
Lehman: Vanderhoef currently serves. 1 don't know what the term on that is.
Vanderhoef: It's at the pleasure of the Council. This is a seat that has been designed for the
City Council. One seat here, one seat is County.
Lehman: I would really be pleasured if you would continue serving there. How about the
rest of the Council?
Champion: I'd give her at least another month. (laughter)
Vanderhoefi Okay.
Lehman: You're still there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#17d Page 33
ITEM 17. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.
d. Itnman Service/Aid to Agencies
Wilburn: This next item related to Human Service/Aid to Agencies I must abstain due to a
conflict of interest since I work for an applicant organization.
Lehman: Don't walk away too far because this is going to be quick.
Kan': We're going to have a motion on all of them though, Ernie.
Lehman: Okay.
Kart: You're going to have to separate that one.
Lehman: We'll eliminate the Human Service/Aid to Agencies, this is a different process
this year and my understanding is there will not be anybody appointed to that
Committee because of the process, ls that...does Council concur with that?
Champion: That's correct, but I hope we're going to discuss these allocations at a work
session.
O'Donnell: We'll have an opportunity.
Lehman: We'll have an opportunity to do that. Okay, I would like to have a motion to
approve what we just decided on Item d, which we will not...
Vanderhoef: We have one more on the next page.
Lehman: Oh, I'm sorry.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#17e Page 34
ITEM 17. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.
e. North Airport Development Subcommittee.
Lehman: Ross and myself currently serve on that Committee. What's your pleasure?
O'Donnell: I'm fine with two serving on it now.
Elliott: Sounds fine to me.
Lehman: Ate you okay? Okay, all right fine. Now, I would like a motion to approve Items
a through e with the exception of d.
Elliott: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by Elliott.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Champion. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
Champion: Move d.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Motion by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. All in favor? Opposed?
Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#20 Page 35
ITEM 20. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Elliott: A couple items. I think several of us have received communications from
people who are interested in the indoor soccer facility, and I'd like for the
Council or the staff to see if there aren't some ways that we can assist
those soccer parents in finding a location, an indoor location. We just
talked about funding, what'd we fund $300,000 and some for the
skateboard park, and I think that I'd like to see some alternatives for
assisting them in this project. Secondly, Will Rogers was asked once if he
was a member of any organized political party and he said no, I'm a
Democrat. Last night it was brought home to me very clearly because it
was pretty much organized chaos, but it was very interesting. I enjoyed
the caucus, and in baseball vernacular, the whole nation was waiting for a
fast ball and we gave them a big round house curve. So it was interesting,
Iowa was there. I was there. I enjoyed it. A lot of people did enjoy it.
Vanderhoefi Here, here.
Lehman: Relative to the soccer issue, would we like to refer that to, Steve, would
you like to refer that to Terry Trueblood, and get his response.
Atkins: What is it you're interested, I mean...
Lehman: Well, as I understand what Bob just said...never mind, Bob, you say what
you just said.
Elliott: We've had, I've had a number of people contact me. They wanted a
facility for an indoor soccer practice and game, and apparently the facility
they identified, my understanding is, it's not appropriate due to zoning
regulations, and we just can't do that. Is there some way that we can
respond and be of assistance to these folks?
Champion: I think this is a wonderful way to get a facility into the city without us
financing the whole thing, and indoor soccer is becoming a very big sport
ali across the country because kids can play all year long, and adults.
Atkins: Well a couple of things to keep in mind. One is that we can certainly help
them look around, but I'm not so sure they haven't already done that.
Secondly, do they have the resources to build their own building?
Champion: No.
Atkins: They don't?
Lehman: Well, they...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#20 Page 36
Dilkes: Maybe we need to put it on a work session and talk about it.
O'Dormell: I think we should put it on a work session. I'd like to get into it.
Vanderhoef: That's fine.
Lehman: Okay. Steve, when you schedule it for a work session, you might also
give Terry the heads-up.
Atkins: You got it.
Lehman: Okay. Anything else?
Champion: Well I just want to...oh, never mind. I'll wait.
Elliott: I'm done.
Champion: No, I was going to make some comment about the...
Lehman: You're going to design the soccer field, is that it? (laughter)
Champion: I don't think it's intended to be a City facility.
Atkins: That's where I was going too. (laughter)
Lehman: We're going to get in trouble here. Connie?
Champion: I'm good, thank you.
O'Donnell: Nothing this evening, Mr. Mayor.
Lehman: Dee?
Vanderhoef: Just reminding people that the legislative lobbying day is coming up in Des
Moines in February and I hope a lot of you...
Lehman: The 18th isn't it?
Vanderhoef: It's a Wednesday.
Lehman: Wednesday, February 18m.
Vanderhoef: Uh-huh, and I hope more people will go. I will be going. I'll be staying over,
otherwise I would typically share rides with people. Anybody want to stay and
shop in Des Moines when they stay, then...
Champion: Haven't you heard about shopping locally?
Bailey: Shop locally, Dee.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#20 Page37
Lehman: Do you have a store downtown?
Vanderhoefi No I don't have a store downtown. I'm staying for a board meeting.
Lehman: Okay, it really, I think it really is important that we have representation. I believe
Steve will have staff folks there?
Atkins: Chances are I'll be there.
Lehman: Okay, good. So, and but, up to three Council people certainly could go and
probably should go, so if you're interested, get a hold of Steve.
Wilbum: A question and a comment. Question is, ifl'm remembering correctly, the
League of Women Voters preferred to meet individually with the Councils as
opposed to en masse, and we never...? Did we ever reset a date with them or...?
Lehman: We have not set a date or time at this point. We had asked the League to meet at
the joint meeting which is tomorrow, and make their presentation to all of the
government entities at the same time, which I felt was a real value doing that.
They choose not to do that, and I think they have made appointments with all the
rest of the entities, and certainly if when they get back with us, we'll set a time.
Wilbum: Okay. Then my comment ~vas just to thank Mayor Lehman for coming to
Neighborhood Center's Martin Luther King Day Celebration, and Ernie did a
pretty good job singing there. He must have done some barbershop work before.
(laughter)
O'Donnell: I'd like to have heard that.
Lehman: I don't do much barbershopping. If you look at the top of my head you'll
understand that. (laughter) I enjoyed being there. It was, I really, a really good
event. Regina?
Bailey: Just a reminder that the Emma Goldman Choice Dinner is Thursday night at 6pm
and you can get tickets by calling the Emma Goldman Clinic.
Lehman: Okay, just a reminder of the joint meeting with the County and the other folks in
the County, is tomorrow at 4:00 at the County Administration Building, so, and
the, I believe, the annual Chamber of Commerce dinner is next Thursday night.
Atkins: The 29th.
Lehman: So, a good meeting to go to. Steve, do you have anything?
Atkins: Nothing, sir.
Lehman: Eleanor? Marian? Do we have a motion to adjourn?
Wilbum: So moved.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.
#20 Page 38
Vanderhoe~ Second.
Lehman: And a second. Allin favor? Opposed? Motion cames. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of January 20, 2004.