HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-07 Transcription#2a page 1
ITEM NO. 2a. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - Tenant-to-Ownership Program.
Lehman/ We have a special presentation tonight. One that I think most of us on the
Council are really very pleased to make. We have, as of last fall, decided to
implement our Tenant-to-Ownership program, and that's a program whereby the
City helps tenants purchase property by helping them with a loan. That loan is
repaid to the City. But instead of folks receiving help with their rent, they become
homeowners. And we have the first person who has accomplished that, and by
the way, I think there are, the third one is, in reading the minutes tonight. I have
two things, the person who is receiving the Certificate of Appreciation from the
City has to work tonight and cannot get the award, so I'm going to ask Maggie to
accept that for her. We also, would you come up, Maggie, I'll just briefly read
this. "The City of Iowa City and the Iowa City Housing Authority would like to
recognize the achievement of self-sufficiency and home-ownership attained by
this family. Their successful participation in the Tenant-to-Ownership Program is
proof with determination dreams can become reality." And there is a gold-plated
key for the house, and here's the certificate. Now, none of this would work
without the participation and help from local financial institutions. And Peggy,
we do appreciate that. Here's a Certificate of Appreciation for the First National.
"The City of Iowa City and Iowa City Housing Authority would like to
acknowledge the active participation in the Tenant-to-Ownership Program by the
First National Bank. Their participation enables the dream of home-ownership to
become a reality for low- and moderate-income families."
Lehman/ I think this is a real (can't understand).
Peggy Doerge/ I would just like to say, on behalf of First National Bank, that we are just
pleased to be a part of this, and the credit of course, goes to the tenants who have
worked so hard to achieve this goal. So thank you.
Lehman/ You know, just an aside, but I thought, I'm sorry, Maggie, go on.
Maggie Grosvenor/ I just wanted to say that we have, you know, three things happening
tonight. This is the first. I will turn this over to the tenant tomorrow.
Lehman/ The owner.
Grosvenor/ The actual owner, yes. I think that will take place on April 17th, technically,
okay?
Lehman/ Right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#2a page 2
Grosvenor/ Then the second is that we're opening up a public hearing, for actually the
third, and then the second step is to actually have the public hearing. So we have
three different home and three different tenants becoming owners on tonight's
Council agenda, so thank you.
Lehman/ Thank you. And just an aside, I think we all like to think that bankers are
somewhat conservative. And the support that this program has received from the
bank, I think, is very encouraging from the City's point of view. Because they are
certainly real partners in this operation.
Kubby/ The First National Bank has really done a lot. For example, Peggy's on the
HACAP Johnson County Commission. So they're really not just doing things in
the bank, they're getting outside of the bank and being involved in housing and
other community issues, too.
Lehman/ Yeah, and I think that's really great.
Kubby/ It's appreciated.
Lehman/ So thanks again.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#3a page 3
ITEM NO. 3a MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS - Fair Housing Month - April 1998
Lehman/ We have some proclamations tonight. (Reads Fair Housing Month
proclamation).
Marian Karr/ Here to accept is Diane Martin from the Human Rights Commission.
Diane Martin/ On behalf of the Commission I really thank you for this.
Lehman/ Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#3b page 4
ITEM NO. 3b Arbor Day - April 25
Lehman/ Our next Proclamation is Arbor Day. (Reads Arbor Day Proclamation).
Karr/ Here to accept is Terry Robinson, our City Forester.
Terry Robinson/ Thank you, Mister Mayor. I'll accept it on behalf of the trees for
tonight. I think if we put any of them in and planted them today, they'd be
floating away though. I have a feeling. It's pretty rough out there now.
Lehman/ Terry, don't we have an event on the morning of the 25th where we're going to
be --?
Robinson/ There are several events that will be going on. There will be some things that
we will do on Friday, the 24th, and there will be some events going on in the
Manville Heights area.
Lehman/ Right.
Robinson/ With a Tree Walk and some seedling giveaways, and that type of thing that
was graciously coordinated by the Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission.
There will be a multitude of people there. I couldn't give you all of them right
now. But there will be information for you coming forthwith so you all know
about it.
Lehman/I'll be there.
Robinson/ Okay, thank you.
Lehman/ Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#3c page 5
ITEM NO. 3c Week of the Young Child - April 19-25
Lehman/ Now, this has got to be one of my favorites. It's the Proclamation for the Week
of the Young Child. (Reads Week of the Young Child Proclamation).
Karr/ Here to accept is Kay Prediger, Director of University Pre-School.
Lehman/ You can't have that till I see some of these young people. This isn't just one
week, this is every week.
Kubby/ You always have the most beautiful buttons. Thank you.
Champion/ Thank you.
O'Donnell/ Thank you.
Kay Prediger/ On behalf of the local chapter of the Iowa Association for the Education of
Young Children, I'd like to thank you for proclaiming this the Week of the Young
Child. The Week of the Young Child is celebrated nationally to renew our
commitment to, and responsibility for young children. In your packet tonight,
you have an invitation to two special events which will be held this month, which
will honor individuals and organizations which work with young children. We
hope you'll be able to attend those events. As the Director of University Pre-
School, I wanted to share just a bit of special history with you. When University
Pre-School started fifty years ago, and needed space for our classroom, to meet for
the children, the City Council offered to let them meet in the City Council
Chambers. And I have a picture here I'm going to give you showing the children
meeting in the City Council Chambers. This was in the Press-Citizen in 1948.
And thank you for your continued interest in the community's children.
Thomberry/ Forty-eight.
O'Donnell/ Dean, you're just a little kid there.
Thornberry/ Right next to you, Mike.
O'Donnell/ I'm the small one.
Champion/ Oh, that's cute.
Lehman/ The next one is Flood Awareness Week, but I think that's an oxymoron right
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#3c page 6
now.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#4 page 7
ITEM NO. 4 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED
Lehman/ Item #4 is Consider adoption of the Consent Calendar as presented or amended.
Vanderhoef/ So moved.
Norton/ Second.
Lehman/ Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Norton. Discussion? It seems that the
first item has been changed. Is that not correct? TCI, it says "Accept TCI's
proposed cure in lieu --"
Karr/ No, that is just their recommendation, so it's just a matter of you accepting that.
Kubby/ It doesn't mean we agree with it.
Karr/ No.
Kubby/ It means we hear you.
Lehman/ Oh, that means we got their letter.
Karr/ That is correct.
Lehman/ Okay. We got their letter, we don't agree with it. Any other comments? Roll
call- (yes).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6b page 8
ITEM NO. 6b PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. Conditionally changing the
zoning designation on a 4.46-card tract located at 500 Foster Road from Interim
Development Single-Family Residential (IDRS) to Sensitive Areas Overlay-8
(OSA-8) to permit 32 dwelling units and approving a preliminary Sensitive Areas
Development Plan. (REZ97-0011)
(1) Public Hearing (continued from March 24)
Lehman/ (Reads agenda item #6b). Public hearing. is open.
Norton/ Thirty-two, Ernie?
Vanderhoef/ It has been changed to thirty-two.
Lehman/ That's correct, it has been changed to thirty-two from thirty-five, I'm sorry.
Larry Schnittjer/ I'm Larry Schnittjer from MMS Consultants, and worked on the design
of this project since last spring sometime. Is the mic on? The plan you have in
front of you is Design Number Seven, I call it. Of multiple plans we've designed
on this project, some of them were not submitted, some of the earlier plans were
twelve-plexes under a proposed RM-12 zoning, and they evolved into what we
have today. That evolution has resulted in numerous improvements and
reductions in the proposed density, from initial RM-12 to less than RS-8 density.
These improvements have been in response to neighborhood concerns, and
attempts to incorporate City staff and Planning and Zoning Commission ideas and
suggestions. Not all of those staff suggestions were considered. One of the
sketches they submitted to us, we threw out because it had just way too much
paving. The developers have met with the neighbors on numerous occasions in an
attempt to attain a compromise that might be acceptable to them. Though the plan
does not retain the existing open space that the neighbors have enjoyed, the
developers feel that the improvements have made, will make a responsible
development. The evolution of the proposed structure is a result of what we feel
is a very attractive living units. The large building, although it has a larger
footprint than the alternate plan that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not
accept last Thursday night, has a graduated roofline that helps to reduce the visual
mass of the structure. I'm going to skip some of this.
Lehman/ Thank you.
Schnittjer/ We have, I'd better not skip that. I was going to ask a question that Dee had
last night. He had a question on the number of trees to be saved. We're going to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6b page 9
save the major red oak tree at the southeast comer of the site. There's a hackberry
to the west of our proposed entrance to this with significant wind damage that's
going to be removed. There's a spruce tree, a birch tree, and an apple tree just
east of Bud's house that will have to be removed to accommodate the road. And
one large, old soft maple in that same general vicinity that will have to be
removed because it's in the way of a structure. The walnut tree that's there, we
propose to remove it because it's not a happy thing to have in the front yard. In
the, there are two other small trees on the west side of the site, they're north of
Bud's shed. One's about an eight-inch maple that's got some severe wind, or bark
damage on it, and then a small apple tree that, those are being removed for two
reasons. One is the maple tree is not a good tree, or in good condition, and the
other one is in the way of the proposed perennial garden. At the north end of the
tract, there's a grouping of black locust which are not real good to have in an
urban situation, but they're not real bad either. The large tree, there's four large
trees in that grouping, and five small ones. Three of the small trees will probably
have to be removed to accommodate the large building. There are more trees
removed by the City Sewer Project than we're taking out in this project. We're
proposing to put in more than sixty new trees to meet the requirements of the Tree
Ordinance. In addition to that, we're proposing evergreen screening and berms
along the west property line. The Parks and Recreation Director indicated that
there's more open space on this project than would be required for conventional
development. Another question was the old stone wall. We'll have to remove a
portion of it to install our new driveway, but we anticipate, or plan that wall will
be reconstructed and wrapped around the curve going into our project. There was
another question on fire lanes. The private access drive is designed to be twenty
feet in width at the direction of the Fire Marshall. The original plan had twenty-
two feet wide, and staff had requested it be reduced to eighteen, prior to the Fire
Marshall's review. It is possible that a fire truck may utilize the duplex
driveways, but I wouldn't recommend it. The driveways don't meet the turning
requirements for the larger fire trucks.
Norton/ So they'll have to back around like they said last night?
Schnittjer/ We've got that special turn-around that we designed at the, just before the
large building.
Lehman/ Larry, this has been approved by the Fire Department, though?
Schnittjer/ Yes.
Lehman/ Fine.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6b page 10
Schnittjer/ If the Council has any questions on this project, I'd be more than glad to
attempt to answer them. The developer and those people are here, and the Louis'
are here also.
Lehman/ Larry, I think for public information, and I didn't mention this earlier and I
probably should have. This was initially passed, or approved, by City staff, and it
was denied by Planning and Zoning. They promptly reconsidered it and have
now approved it to the Council. So it now has the approval of both the Planning
and Zoning Commission and the City staff, with the modifications, I think,
through number seven.
Schnittjer/ Yeah.
Lehman/ So obviously, you've been working very closely with the developer and the
City.
Schnittjer/ City staff has approved the last three plans that were submitted. The Planning
and Zoning Commission had some problems and concerns about density and
building sizes and various other issues in this thing, so we backed off another
three dwelling units, and did some major redesign on the large building.
Champion/ But it was my consensus last night, that there won't be any problem with
these projects once you have the rest of the things that you have to submit,
something about exterior finish and grading analysis or something like that.
Schnittjer/ The grading plan has been approved by Engineering, I've been informed.
And the rest of the legal papers, I'm informed, also in order.
Eleanor Dilkes/ CZA has signed grading plans for it.
Lehman/ Everything is in order, so we can close the public hearing tonight?
Dilkes/ Yes.
Norton/ It does seem to me that one of the, well, maybe we should wait till we go ahead
with the ordinance. But it does seem to me that the density you now have
achieved of thirty-two units on there, and I think if it were to remain an RS-5, I
think it could've been around twenty-five or six. So the density is only very
slightly increased.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6b page 11
Schnittjer/ Yes.
Norton/ I was curious about what's going to happen to the water, the stormwater, behind
the houses on the right of the entry drive. Will it run over the hill and down?
Schnittjer/ No. We haven't figured out how to do that one yet.
Norton/ I mean, Margaret's down there waiting for it, you know.
Schnittjer/ Most of the site, not all of it, drains, will be designed to drain to the rear of the
site. And we'll catch it in a stormwater facility back there. We have enough
compensating storage, and we can crack down on a release rate to accommodate
that stormwater that we haven't captured.
Kubby/ So where does that other stormwater that doesn't go to the facility go to? What
direction?
Schnittjer/ It goes down Foster Road.
Thornberry/ I noticed that the roofline was not too much different than the houses that
were in the area.
Champion/ The apartments.
Schnittjer/ It's a few feet higher, but the, that's primarily because the roofline is a steeper
roof than the existing four-plex structures are. That and the fact that the building
is wider, so you actually will have a higher. But the second story, no, the third
story of the three-story portion is about the same level as the second story of the
four-plexes.
Champion/ Yeah.
Norton/ I notice at some point, the driveway west of the present Louis house has to
presume to be closed to preclude so many entrances off of Foster Road. That
means access to that's going to be from the east. Will that be reasonable? I mean,
given the orientation of the house?
Schnittjer/ We've determined a location for the driveway. Bud has a asphalt area on the
south side of his shed that we can extend over to our main access drive and
improve that for him to get his access at the point in time that the other access is
closed, according to the agreements.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6b page 12
Lehman/ Thank you. Any other comments?
Kubby/ I have a staff question. I had asked about the conditional zoning agreement in
Section A, that there was this phrase "escrows for other required public
improvements as appropriate", and felt that was --
Thomberry/ Pretty bad.
Kubby/ I wanted some examples.
Dilkes/ It's pretty much boilerplate language. And what it allows for is that if the
developer wants to get building permits before the improvements are completed,
then they can escrow money in with that. And I talked to John Cruise about that
today, and they're fine with it.
Kubby/ They're okay with it. Okay.
Lehman/ Public hearing. is closed.
(2) Consider an Ordinance (First Consideration)
Thornberry/ Instead of continuing this to April 28th --
O'Donnell/ April 28th.
Lehman/ I just closed it.
Norton/ We don't have to.
Thornberry/ No, what I'm going to do is move to consider the ordinance.
O'Donnell/ Second.
Lehman/ Moved by Thornberry, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Kubby/I'm glad that the bulk of the building is smaller, and it's going to fit into that
neighborhood. It's really difficult to go into a new area of town where there has
been sparse development and do infill development. But it is what we have talked
about at least over the last five years as a goal, because a way of preventing urban
sprawl is to allow development in the already-developed parts of town and to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6b page 13
make public improvements closer to town. So, I know it's uncomfortable for
neighboring properties, but it really, it is something we need to be doing. And
I'm glad that the density went down, and that the bulk of the larger building will
not be as intrusive to those who live near this beautiful site.
Lehman/ Roll call- (yes). First consideration is carried.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#5 page 14
ITEM NO. 5. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA).
Lehman/ It has come to my attention that someone came in after the Public Discussion
was closed and if someone would like to speak, we will temporarily open that
again.
Gary Sanders/ Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. My name's Gary Sanders, and I
apologize for being a little late for the Public meeting part of the City Council
meeting tonight. And also, I'm going to speak for about two minutes ifI can,
about an issue that I think maybe is already resolved. But I don't believe that the
public has fully grasped it and become fully cognizant of it. And that is the ramp
on the comer of Iowa and Linn Streets. Because the people that I was talking to
today were very surprised about it. And so that's why I'm here tonight. I don't
represent any group, but I would like to weigh in with my thoughts on it. The
first question, of course, which I know you've already answered is, do we need
another ramp? And you've already decided yes. Okay. Well, let's, I won't get
into whether the numbers of the present ramps and to what capacity they are now,
but I'm not sure that case has been made to the public that we definitely need one.
But let's say we do need one. The question becomes why there, on the comer of
Iowa and Linn, knocking down The Cottage and the Harmon Building? I think
that, that if we can find an alternative to knocking down buildings that are in use,
especially something like the Harmon building which does have, to me anyway,
some interest as an older building, and also The Cottage. I realize, ifLori wants
to continue, she'll be reimbursed well, and she'll move her business. But I look
out here at this parking lot as I'm driving in, and I see all this parking area right
here, and I'm thinking you know, why not a ramp here? And then do something
like a trolley for two blocks. If you want to get people two blocks into downtown.
I think the idea of a free trolley with maybe people getting a shot of espresso or
pop for the kids, I think it'd be a wonderful thing. I think it'd be imaginative. I
think people would come down here to actually just do that. I don't think
anybody's going to come down to park in another ugly ramp. And I'm sure you'll
find an architect that'll do a superb job. But I think that ramps by their very
nature are fairly ugly to begin with. And especially on that comer, I would see it
as an incredible eyesore. So, if it's not too late, think about this. You know, why
not try something like that, the trolley idea. Especially at this time, when it seems
to me we should be preserving as much integrity of downtown as we possibly can.
We don't really need to make it the ramp capital of the country, and I think that's
what we're doing with another one. For the amount of, we like to think we're the
most literate or the most educated, but in terms of parking ramp spaces per
population per consumer dollar downtown, I think we're up near the top. And
finally, I'm really wondering, you know, I've always told my more that it would
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#5 page 15
be great if she ever moved here, and you know, she could live right downtown
and live in Ecumenical Towers, and just walk around. She doesn't drive. And
I'm wondering, if, I would never tell her that now, with this ramp right there.
Would any of you, in all honesty, urge anyone of any age to move in there with
this all-night traffic going in and out, people honking their horns, throwing a
variety of objects, making noise, plus the increased traffic. I think this would be
an absolutely horrid thing for some older person to move in there. And I wouldn't
want to live there, frankly. So, I ask you to consider, if it's not too late, some
other possibility. Really. And maybe you could let me know what stage we're at
on this. Because honestly, the people that I have talked to today had no idea that
this was a done deal, or near a done deal. And we're actually very surprised and
shocked by it. Thank you.
Lehman/ Thank you, Gary.
Champion/ Gary, when you say "these people", are they people on the street? Are they
people who live in Ecumenical Towers?
Sanders/ Some of them even were coming out of Catherine's that I talked to, actually.
There was a nice bench there today, and I sat and talked to some people.
Lehman/ You didn't use profanity though.
Sanders/ No, no.
Lehman/ Good.
Sanders/ Some of them I talked to at Pearson's, and some at Hamburg Inn, and some at
the Northside Book Market, which of course the owners don't endorse my ideas.
But it's a wonderful store. We just celebrated our first anniversary. As long as
I'm giving you a commercial plug. But, so, I don't represent a group.
Champion/ Okay, I just wondered --
Sanders/ And when I say "these people", just people that I see in my daily life, or during
the past week or so. I know there was a meeting at the Public Library in Meeting
Room B on Sunday, and there were about ten people there to talk about this. And
I'm frankly surprised that they're not here. And I don't know if they've contacted
you. A number of them were senior citizens. I briefly just ran in, gave them my
name and said, you know, there was a sign-up that said anybody interested in
protesting the ramp on the comer of Iowa and Linn, come to this meeting. And I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#5 page 16
don't know really who's involved or whatever. So, that's all I mean by "these
people", a variety of people that I have spoken to.
Champion/ All right.
Lehman/ Gary, there's going to be a meeting at the Senior Center tomorrow at 1:45 and
this is going to be discussed with the folks at the Senior Center. So, if you would
like, if you're available, you would find out a lot more about it.
Sanders/ Okay. Well, is it a done deal, I guess, that's the question, my one big question.
Kubby/ It's never done until we vote on the specs and everything.
Norton/ Pretty close.
Kubby/ But it's overwhelming support for this on this body.
Thomberry/ Gary, also, the Harmon building, I don't want to see that gone, either. And
I, and The Cottage, I don't want to see gone, either. But they're, in the proposed
schematic of the new ramp, they're to go back in, at least the lower level of the
Harmon building, and The Cottage would be going back in, to do business in the
same location. So we're not putting them out on the street for, you know, forever.
A short period of time, yes, but they'll be going back. And there's going to be
provisions for them to go back in. Also, they're looking, an idea has been
presented to put an additional level on top to have apartments or condominiums or
something up there. There has been an interest expressed in doing that. And that
would be, not, the City wouldn't be doing that, but a private developer would be
doing that. And they're the people that have the Harmon building. They've asked
if they can put another level up on top. But you'll find out a lot more about it, I
think, when we all go to the Senior Center tomorrow, if you'd like to be there.
Sanders/ All right.
Kubby/ But Gary, your concern was the actual physical structure of the Harmon
building?
ganders/Year. The structure and how, and whether we are so far along in this process
that we can consider this a done deal.
Thornberry/No, it's not.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#5 page 17
Norton/ We've looked at a lot of sites over the time, and this one out here has sewer
developments underneath that preclude constructing a ramp out here, which is a
little off-center in any case. And then the other one, across the street from, on the
other side of Gilbert and Iowa Avenue, on the other comer, on that University
Lot, there were reasons for the University not wanting to do it there, or at least not
for many years.
Sanders/ Are they sharing those reasons with us?
Norton/ Well, they shared the reason, it's because they want to keep that other building,
that North Hall.
Thomberry/ Yeah.
Norton/ You need about a half a block to be efficient.
Vanderhoeff They were interested in doing it after they can move the programs that are
in that building to a new location, and that hasn't been built yet.
Lehman/ Gary, I think that Council has indicated an interest in locating the ramp at that
location. The design of the ramp and whatever, I'm sure none of that's been
finalized yet.
Sanders/ Because I wouldn't want to be sitting at The Cottage outdoors on a nice spring
day, you know, drinking coffee and reading my newspaper while cars are
whizzing in and out. The traffic, you know, whizzing in and out, people driving
around, frantically trying to find spaces --
Lehman/ I don't think that frantically is a good description.
Sanders/ Okay, maybe not frantically. Nobody in Iowa City would drive around
frantically. But just, the ambiance of the place would be, you know, mined, I
think. And--
Kubby/ But Gary, the reality is that there's six members of City Council who are
interested in that ramp, in that location. We're in a design phase. So, I mean, we
may be saying it's not over till it's over, but it's moving forward. And it's in the
design phase. So we need to be real about how we're talking about this.
Sanders/ (Yes). I don't suppose it would be in any way constructive to tell Dr. Mary Sue
Coleman that, you know, maybe she should be pushing forward that spot on Iowa
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#5 page 18
and Gilbert, since it is, in fact, as we can observe, on any day of the week when
there are students here, or on the weekends, except when there's vacation time,
that it obviously is students that causing this. That if you go down there on a
break, then you could roll a bowling ball down there and there'd be plenty of
places to park. You know, maybe we could tell her, you know, perhaps this
would be a good neighbor for you to do, just as we're a good neighbor to provide
extra police at the football games and in the bars and so on. And you know, we
obviously help them out with situations that are created by their, you know,
27,000 plus students. It seems to me that certainly we could go in and say that
maybe it's time for you to be a little better neighbors.
Norton/ We've already tried that.
Thornberry/ We have talked to Mary, in fact I've talked to Mary Sue Coleman and asked
her about that, and she said well, not in the foreseeable future. I said well, how
long is that, and she said, well we're not even going to look at it for five years.
Lehman/ Well, Gary, let me suggest, if you'd like to visit with us privately, you're
welcome to.
Sanders/ Yeah, okay.
Lehman/ And I would encourage you, if you're interested, to attend that meeting
tomorrow.
Sanders/ One - what time is that again?
Lehman/ 1:45 at the Senior Center.
Sanders/ Okay. Thank you very much.
Lehman/ Thank you.
Norton/ Am I clear about that, Ernie, there are three of us going, is that right?
Lehman/That's correct.
Norton/ Only three, so we don't have a meeting.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6c page 19
ITEM NO. 6c Conditionally changing the zoning designation on approximately 41 acres
located between Lower West Branch Road and Court Street extended,
approximately 4/5 miles west of Taft Avenue from Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5) to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RM-12) for
11.9 acres. (REZ97-0019)
(1) Public Hearing (continued from March 24)
Lehman/ (Reads agenda item #6c). This is on the east side of town. Public hearing. is
open. Public hearing. is closed.
(2) Consider an Ordinance (continued from March 24)
Thornberry/ Move adoption of the ordinance.
Lehman/ Moved by Thomberry.
Norton/ Second.
Lehman/ Seconded by Norton. First consideration of the ordinance. Discussion?
Kubby/ I guess I wanted to say that I've brought up this issue a couple of times where
there are a couple of things that I think we're doing that I think in some ways
predispose the Northeast planning district to come out in a certain way. And one
of those things was putting in Captain Irish Parkway with an alignment and the
second one was this rezoning. This piece of property is in a part of town where
the community is kind of discussion how should things be zoned, and where
should roads be. And so I feel like we're kind of precluding what's going on
there. And so we asked the developer if they'd be willing to slow down on this
application until the community process has gone through its course, its natural
course, and their response makes a lot of sense to me. gaud their response is that
they would prefer to have their zoning in place now, because it's going to be a
higher density zoning, because their lower density zoning area is getting filled up
and they want people, as they buy their property, to know what the zoning's going
to be there. And that has been a big problem for us in the past, where we have put
it out there to the development community, we want Neighborhood Commercial
zones with higher density around it, and then slightly less dense as you go out.
And this developer has responded to that, and when we've tried to do it when
there are already people living there, there's been a lot of resistance. And so
we're trying to prevent that kind of situation. So, I'm a little uncomfortable about
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6c page 20
the process, but I think it's important because we're heading in this direction, and
have been even before the Northeast Planning District process started. And I feel
comfortable supporting the zoning change.
Lehman/ And we were told last night that there seems to be very little interest on the part
of the Northeast Planning folks in discussing this particular area of the Northeast
quadrant.
Vanderhoef/ Well, this points out the example of what Karen's just talking about, that if
it's real close to where there is already development, there's a lot more interest,
and the people come out. This particular property is further east where there are
no developments at this point, and so people aren't terribly interested in it. We'd
like to see more people come out and be involved in planning those areas further
away from the present development.
Lehman/ Roll call- (yes). First consideration passed.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6d page 21
ITEM NO. 6d Changing the zoning designation on approximately 24.12 acres from
Interim Development (ID-RS) to Sensitive Areas Overlay-5 (OSA-5) and
approving a preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan for property located at
the east terminus of Hickory Trail. (REZ97-0007)
(1) Public Hearing (continued from March 24)
Lehman/ (Reads agenda item #6d). And this is in the vicinity of First Avenue extended,
which has been delayed, postponed, or eliminated. The public hearing. is open.
Joe Holland/ I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. My name's Joe Holland. I
represent the developer on this project, and if I could, I'd like to ask the Council's
indulgence to have some of your time tonight. It may take me a few minutes to
say what I'd like to say. About a month ago, three weeks ago, I had a call from a
local reporter who said why're you bothering to do this, why are you going to the
Council with this after Planning and Zoning voted 6-0 against this proposal? And
I asked myself the same question, why am I going to be here tonight? It's no fun
to get beat up in a losing cause. People in the neighborhood have made it clear to
me that they've talked to Council members. There's not six votes to pass this.
What I told that reporter was, and I honestly believe this, is that the Council's the
body in this community that makes the decisions, not the Planning and Zoning
Commission. That's number one. I want to hear the Council say what happens to
this project. There's always a chance you might approve it. Second, I don't think
we got a satisfactory hearing or resolution at the Planning and Zoning
Commission. I'll go into that a little bit why I feel that way, because I think
whatever happens to this project, we need to understand why the City doesn't
want this to happen at this time. I was thinking of guidance for the future. I think
there's also issues that relate not just to this project, but for others that need to be
addressed in the context of this particular development. I'm not sure why
Planning and Zoning rejected this particular application, to be real honest. I sat
through that meeting. There was no real, meaningful discussion of the merits of
this project. The stumbling block was a 1988 conditional zoning agreement, and
if you read the minutes of that meeting, I was not aware when we started this
project that that conditional zoning agreement existed. I think it had been
overlooked by everyone involved. Even City staff wasn't aware of that until well
into the process. The public hearing before Planning and Zoning was already
scheduled. What that conditional zoning agreement says is that there'll be no
further development of the tract we're here to talk about tonight, tmtil secondary
access is provided. What I heard form Planning and Zoning was, you've got this
conditional zoning agreement in place. It has to be honored. We're not going to
discuss deviating from it. They didn't consider the changes in the community, the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6d page 22
changes in the area since that agreement was entered into in 1988. It was ten
years ago this month, in fact, I think ten years ago next week. It's true, as some of
the Planning and Zoning Commission members said, that there was a
consideration given in 1988 when that agreement was entered into, that was the
approval of First and Rochester part three. The concession the developer made
was there wasn't going to be any further development. All that's true, but it's also
true that times change. And there was a very, very limited discussion of the
merits of this subdivision proposal at that meeting. And that's one of the primary
reasons I'm here. I do some work in court, and I tell clients sometimes you're
going to lose. And if you know why you did, and it's well thought out, most
people can live with losing. What they can't live with is when there's either an
arbitrary result or an unexplained result. I'm not saying it's arbitrary. I'm saying
I think, in large part, the result here is unexplained. One thing which didn't come
out at the Planning and Zoning Commission, I think has some significance is, as I
said, this conditional zoning agreement was entered into in April of 1988. There
are a set of guidelines out there for secondary access. Those guidelines were
entered into in late 1992, some four years, four and a half years after that
conditional zoning agreement was signed. I don't know that there was a big
substantive change, but those guidelines didn't exist at the time that that
agreement was entered into. I think it's always good to look at issues like this, to
see what's changed. I, last week, I had three people come in. I did wills for those
people. And I tell people routinely, you pull that will out and look at it every five
years, even if nothing in your life has changed, because events around you
change. And you're dealing with a moving target. And I think development and
how the City grows is also one of those moving targets. You can't put together an
agreement ten years ago and say that that agreement's sacrosanct, even if you
don't have secondary access. So what has changed, and why am I making this
pitch to you? I've been practicing in this community since 1977, and for a large
part of that, the bulk of my practice has been real estate practice. I think a lot of
the people on the Council are probably old enough to remember in the mid 1980s,
the first time I bought a house, interest rates were 16 to 17 percent. That
immediately preceded this conditional zoning agreement. It was during a period
of time when First and Rochester was getting off the drawing board. Another
thing happened shortly after that though, when interest rates started to go down.
There was a big influx into Iowa City of people from both the east and west
coasts, mainly for job related purposes through the University, through ACT,
NCS, our big employers. Those people had sold houses on the coasts, and had big
capital gains, and at that point you had to roll those capital gains over. Which
means if they sold a house in California for $275,000, they had to come to Iowa
City and build a house for $275,000, or find a house -- houses weren't here.
There simply weren't those houses in Iowa City, so they started building those
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6d page 23
houses. What happened was, the people who were here saw those and they said
hey, those are pretty nice houses. Interest rates started to drop off, and
development started to come on the market like the first three parts of First and
Rochester, where those houses were appropriate. And a lot of those got built.
What's happened is over time though, those lots have filled in. There really are
not a lot of the quality lots of that type available in Iowa City. There are some
lots. There's lots in Walnut Ridge which is in the far west edge of Iowa City, and
there are lots in Windsor Ridge which is in the far east edge of Iowa City, and part
of this plan you just approved a minute ago, in terms of overall scope. There's
also lots of lots out in Johnson County. Every Saturday, with our Saturday
morning paper, we get three items. There's three big real estate companies in
Iowa City. Lepic-Kroeger, Coldwell Banker, and Iowa Realty. You can look
through these, and you can see where the lots are that homes get built on. They're
in Johnson County, they're in Coralville, there are some in Iowa City. But what's
happened is that a lot of the housing stock we're talking about building in this
development is going out in Johnson County. It's going out into Coralville. Iowa
City is losing that. Who wants to live here? It's people who work at the
University. It's close to where they live. It's a lot closer than Walnut Ridge if
you work in the east campus. There's a lot of people in Mercy Hospital, that work
at Mercy Hospital. A lot of people in the business community. There are a lot of
people who have children who go to Regina who want to live in this area. They
don't want to live on the far east or far west side of Iowa City. Simply saying
there's demand out there, I don't think, really answers the whole question. I
guess, like a lot of things, it comes down to what's in it for the City. And I
thought about that. And one of the things is just the people that live there.
There's a constant advertising for people to serve on boards and commissions in
this City. If you look at the people who live in this area, there are lots of good
people that live there. Lots of valuable community members. Right now, you
lose a lot of those valuable community members to Coralville and Johnson
County. There's a human cost in not allowing this kind of development to occur.
CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 98-53, SIDE A
Holland/ There's a lot of them, so I didn't actually sit down and do a mathematical total,
but in a rough calculation, the average assessed value is about $250,000. They're
really, the way the subdivision stands right now, there are 43 usable lots. That
translates into $10,750,000 of assessed valuation. It's fairly crass, but the City
can use the money is what it comes down to. Another topic that came up a few
minutes ago, that I'm going to come back to in a little bit --
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6d page 24
Lehman/ Joe, kind of move this along.
Holland/ I'm, well, I'm moving along.
Lehman/ Okay.
Holland/ I'll try, but I said, I'd like you to indulge me, because like I say, this is the only
opportunity I'm going to get. You're probably going to get a lot of comments and
opposition to this. You've already gotten petitions and letters and protests. I'll
try and move along faster, but ifI talk fast, you're not going to be able to
understand me. I certainly want the people at home who watch this video again
and again and again to understand what I'm saying. The issue I wanted to
mention was infill development. Developing properties closer to the City center
versus a continuing urban sprawl. What are the issues that present themselves?
One is traffic along Hickory Trail. That's something the neighbors have brought
up. I don't know how you're going to deal with that. Because if you allow any
other development in this area, there's going to be traffic on Hickory Trail. It's
natural corridor along Ralston Creek on the north side of Ralston Creek. I don't
think there's any other way, even if you extend this road on up to Scott Boulevard
and Captain Irish Parkway, that people are going to drive and go on out to the
east. There's nothing that draws in that direction. The people living in this area
are going to come down Hickory Trail. I think there may be some things that can
be done as that develops farther to slow down traffic and encourage people. But I
think that's a given. I know the neighbors are concerned that Tamarack, which is,
there's one street in the subdivision, Tamarack. It goes north to property owned
by ACT. It's a stub street. It could be a cul-de-sac. It's shown as a stub street
primarily because that's what the City wants. They want the ability to extend that
street further in the future if need be. I think the developer probably would
probably be just as happy with a cul-de-sac. The only way that that's going to go
through there is if either ACT wants a street through there, or the City condemns a
street. So I don't think it's a real big issue. The traffic, there've been two traffic
counts done on First Avenue, which includes all of First and Rochester, Parts one
through three, not Hickory Trail, but also what comes off of the other streets. In
1994, the average traffic count was 1,710 vehicles. In 1997, it was 1,571, so there
actually was a drop. I don't know if that is statistically significant or not, but I
don't think there's been a terrific increase over time, and I think the area can bear
that. In the protest petition the neighbors gave, there is another comment about
open space, and why it's along the creek and basically inaccessible. One of the
answers to that is that that's what the City wanted. The City wants that stream
corridor. They want flat ground for parkland. A lot of this land has very steep
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6d page 25
topography. It's not well-suited to park use. It's going to be open space. It may
not be public space, but it's open space, because it's in a Sensitive Area Overlay.
So there is going to be open space. Stormwater drainage, there's a bit of a
problem along the west side of the property. But it's there now. I don't think that
the subdivision's going to change that. In fact, it may improve it because there's
going to be additional grading. A lot of the water's going to go to the east and go
down the street rather than coming down the west. Stormwater management
through stormsewers meets all the City specifications. The real issue here seems
to me to be secondary access. First Avenue extended would have satisfied the
City staff as far as the guidelines are concerned. The real issue is the culvert
under First Avenue south of Hickory Trail. The guidelines that they're looking at
to make that determination are these that were adopted four years after that
conditional zoning agreement. I want to read you something, just a very brief
excerpt from the meeting where those guidelines were approved. It starts out,
Cook, this is Casey Cook. Cook said it was more important to encourage compact
and contiguous development and that secondary access was secondary to these
issues. Scott (and that's Tom Scott) stated that one of his objections to the
proposal was that the burden placed upon the developer to set a time-frame was
the burden placed upon the developer to establish a time-frame for establishment
of secondary access but the corresponding burden was not placed upon the City
when it was the City's responsibility. He said the secondary access was not
always a problem with the developers property, but could be a problem on
adjoining property over which the developer has no control. He said the City has
the power of condemnation in these situations. I think you have to put the
secondary access guidelines in that kind of context. These are the Zoning
Commissioners that adopted those. I don't want to belabor this, but I think there's
a real disagreement over whether that culvert under First Avenue is any kind of a
safety hazard. When people think of a culvert, they think of a little tube that goes
under a driveway. These are two twelve by twelve box culverts. These were
designed by Edmund Mass at the request of the City and for the City in 1984, and
constructed in 1984. The water's never been over the roadway since they were
constructed. These are box culverts, twelve feet. There's a, there's one to three
feet of soil on top of the culverts, then the paving's on top of that. The low point
of that paving is 2.8 feet above the hundred-year flood. The concern on the part
of City staff is that emergency vehicles may not be able to get through there.
Based upon everything we know, history, engineering, I don't think that's a
legitimate concern. There has been water backing up in the past, but it hasn't
backed up over the road. It may have backed up into the back yards of some of
the people on the Creek, but that was because there were debris and trees in the
culverts. And like any culvert anywhere in the City, occasionally they have to be
cleaned out to allow the free flow of water. Finally, I think, when you think about
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6d page 26
secondary access, you're going to have to put it in the context of areas all over the
City. If you really want to do these developments like the one you're
contemplating improving on Foster Road, Foster Road has one way in and one
way out. The City's got its own project up here involving a lot of acres and I
don't know how many residential units, but secondary access should be an issue
there if it's a real safety concern. You've got one fairly narrow roadway going in
and going out. I know there's planning sessions going on, and I know those are a
great idea. The problem is land ownership is divided. We can't control what's
going to happen there. The City has a limited ability to control what happens
there because that land can sit there for a long, long time before anything happens.
Condemnation or public funding is the only way to make it happen now, or in the
reasonably near future. What we're talking about here, First and Rochester, the
part we're talking about is not something that's going to stop that planning
process. It's really just a very small part of that. In fact, it makes some sense to
do it now, because then you see what's going to happen in that area. I'm
concerned about that planning process, because it's common wisdom that the best
way to kill an idea is to assign it to a committee, and to a certain extent, that's like
assigning it to a committee. Because the planning process can take a long, long
time, and it has to do with resources over which neither the City, nor that planning
process has any control. There've been a lot of changes since 1988. Interest rates
are at a long-time low. There's a strong demand for these lots. The City's going
to benefit from approval. I guess I wish you'd approve it. But, if you can't, if
you just think you can't approve this, I really hope that the Council members will
tell us why so that we know what can be done, what would make this an
acceptable development. Thank you for your time.
Lehman/ Joe, did you make this presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission?
Holland/ A good part of it, I did.
Lehman/ You did. Okay.
Holland/ They did not ask me a single question. I had my say, and they had their say.
Commissioner Bovbjerg said we have a conditional zoning here from 1998, 1988
that we have to honor, and the discussion went from there.
Lehman/ Thankyou.
Kubby/ Was there any attempt on the part of your client to change the '88 conditional
zoning agreement before coming in with this proposal?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6d page 27
Holland/ I'm not sure exactly what you mean. This proposal is to change that.
the conditional zoning agreement is very short. It says there will be no
development of this property until there's secondary access.
I mean,
Kubby/ Well,--
Holland/ I guess what we're saying is we'd just simply like to be released from that
agreement, that the City and the developers say that agreement doesn't make
sense anymore.
Kubby/ I guess that's not how I read what's exactly in front of us. What we have in front
of us is a zoning change.
Holland/ City staff, Bob Miklo, or Scott Kugler and Bob Miklo and I talked about that,
and that's in the form of an ordinance. I mean, the conditional zoning
agreement's signed, but it's also passed in the form of an ordinance, and we felt
that an ordinance changing the zoning would both --
Kubby/ Would automatically --
Holland/ Would repeal that ordinance, that inactive, that conditional zoning agreement,
and also rezone at the same time.
Kubby/ Eleanor, do you agree that that's what would be happening?
Dilkes/ I haven't talked to them about it, but that's, that sounds reasonable.
Holland/ There's a repeal clause in the ordinance, so you can repeal inconsistent
ordinances.
Dilkes/ We do rezonings a lot, and we don't necessarily specifically point to the --
Holland/ I guess in part, the merits were the same, which way it's done, so it didn't make
a lot of sense to do it in a two-step process. Plus, in all honesty, we were way into
the process before anybody realized this conditional zoning agreement was still
out there.
Thomberry/ I guess I'd like to hear from Karin Franklin --
Lehman/ Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6d page28
Thornberry/ From staff, as to why this should or should not be done, according to, as far
as you're concerned.
Karin Franklin/ Well, I think the position of the staff and the position of the Planning and
Zoning Commissions over time has been very clear, in terms of secondary access
with the First and Rochester developments. When First and Rochester Part One,
the issue of secondary access came up, we talked about it. It was not denied
because of that. But it was an issue that was, the discussion began with the
development of this area. Putting the issue of secondary access aside has
happened on at least two occasions since I've worked for the City on the First on
Rochester development, until we got to the point in 1988 that we came to getting
the conditional zoning agreement that Joe has referred to. The reason that the
secondary access guidelines were adopted in 1992 is because we had a secondary
access policy previously. It was the consequence of a court case in the late '70s.
The Oakes Meadows Case, in which the City won the case in terms of our having
the ability to require secondary access. And it was based on the number of units,
solely. And 29 units was the number of units. That was the benchmark that we
used for all of our secondary access evaluations. In '92, we decided that to be
quite so circumspect as just saying 29 units was probably not fair because it was
not looking at all the factors that came into play when you're talking about
secondary access issues. It was hard to distinguish between 29 single-family
houses and 29 apartment units. So we looked at what were the different issues
that came into play with secondary access. And that is the secondary access
policy that Joe referred to that was adopted, well, that was adopted as guidelines
in 1992, and that we have used since, and have discussed with Councils over time.
As to whether you want to continue to use that. Some of the issues that are
addressed in that policy have to do with the number of vehicles that would pass by
a certain point as a consequence of development. It also speaks to issues of slope,
the topography of an area. If it's particularly rough, the secondary access issues
are greater than if you're talking about a flat piece of land. If there are natural
features which could result in a blockage of the main access point, that's another
factor that comes into play. The two features that are most critical to the First and
Rochester developments are Ralston Creek, as Joe points our, and also First
Avenue, the slope of First Avenue and the fact that it's a north-facing slope.
Which means that in the wintertime, you have the potential for that hill to be
impassable because of ice, because it's not going to melt as quickly, and it is a
steep slope. It's a ten percent grade, which is something that is acceptable.
Lehman/ Steep.
Franklin/ It's steep. That that factor comes into play as well in this particularly
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6d page 29
development as well. So, we have taken the position, I think consistently, and the
developer of this property who has been the same throughout the year, is very
aware of this position. We have attempted to gain secondary access by other
means, to help out the development of this area. I think some of you would
remember when we looked at trying to get a secondary access both with the St.
Thomas Court development, with the Rochester Hills development. Both of those
developments, the staff made a pitch to have secondary access provided via those
streets, and connect those streets to Hickory Hill Trail, or to Hickory Trail. The
Councils at the time decided that that was not appropriate. They didn't want to
make that connection. We then attempted to get a secondary access at the end of
Hickory Trail through what is the Smith brothers' property, through
condemnation. That also was not politically palatable. So, efforts have been
made over time to provide secondary access to this area, and the developer is very
much aware of that, and very much aware of the position we've taken over the
years.
Thornberry/ Is that still a requirement, that with a single-access area, there can only be
29 residences? Because I --
Franklin/ No, it is not. In fact, in the First and Rochester area, I think, well, one of the
numbers then we started to look at was the number of units in the Normandy
Drive area, which is 108, with the single means of access. Again, an area that is
constrained physically. First and Rochester is about at that number. It may be a
little bit higher than the 108, but we got away from the absolute number because it
no longer made sense.
Thornberry/ Yeah.
Franklin/ And took into account these other factors. The only other factor that's in the
policy that I haven't mentioned is the feasibility of getting secondary access in the
foreseeable future. That is, if the developer has control of land to get secondary
access at some point in the future, and as the area develops, would gain that
secondary access, we'll be less stringent in terms of saying no more development
until you get the secondary access. They are guidelines. They are measure for the
staff to use, for Planning and Zoning to use, and for you to use to make the
judgment as to whether secondary access is necessary or not. In this case, we
have made the judgment consistently for a number of years that there needs to be
secondary access for the First and Rochester developments to continue.
Thomberry/ Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6d page 30
Lehman/ Thank you, Karin.
Franklin/ You're welcome.
Vanderhoef/ I'd just like to comment. Joe, I did also have the same concern on the
secondary access on the Foster Road project, and there is another road that is
being planned out there for that secondary access. Because I was not comfortable
moving forward knowing that there would be further development out on the
peninsula.
Norton/ Well, my -- pardon me, you want to close the public hearing. first?
Kubby/ Well, Ernie, there might be residents who want to speak.
Lehman/ Is there any other discussion on this public hearing.?
Kubby/ Just to check in.
Lehman/ Public hearing. is closed.
(2) Consider an Ordinance (continued from March 24)
Lehman/ If we want to discuss that, we need a motion to pass first consideration.
Thomberry/ Well, I'll move, I'll move --
Lehman/ First consideration.
Thornberry/ First consideration.
Lehman/ Moved by Thornberry.
Champion/Second.
Lehman/ Seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Norton/ Well, I'm going to support the Planning and Zoning on this. I hear those
arguments and I think it's a kind of close call, but I would like to give that
planning effort out there a chance to go. Now I think it ought to have some
deadlines, too. So there can be a date infinitely, and I understand they're not in
control of everything. But I think the exact layout of Captain Irish and the exactly
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6d page31
what happens with Scott and Captain Irish and exactly what happens with the
stormwater, that before it even gets to Hickory Hill, before it runs off onto
Evergreen or whatever. And what exactly what happens to the Owen's place (??),
I think that process ought to have a chance to proceed. And it seems to me that
the proposal, the people who brought the proposal knew that that process was
being put into effect. So it just seems to me it's a little untimely to jump this in
when we're asking a group to take a serious look at the whole region. We have
630 undeveloped lots in the City since, that is, they've been platted and approved
since 1990. 630 of them, I think, are still unbuilt. So, in some ways, there's not a
rush. Now I understand you're talking about a particular comer of the market, but
there's even some of those available, so, you know, it costs a lot to put in these
developments, too. It's not all, you know, as well as the City we're going to lose
all that money. It takes a fair amount of infrastructure to support them. In fact,
such developments probably about break even, if that, in terms of what they bring
back. So, I'm sensitive to your argument, but I think we ought to give this
process a chance, and we need to set some guidelines to that, and I'm sure I'll be,
it'll be, if it comes back, it'll be exactly the situation we're in now, I'll be the first
to say I made a mistake.
Lehman/ Other discussion?
Thomberry/ If I did not think there was going to be secondary access to that area, in the
foreseeable future, I would vote to allow this. But I think sooner, rather than later,
there will be secondary access, and I wouldn't, I wouldn't mothball the plan.
Lehman/ You know, there are basically two issues, and I heard what Joe said, and I think
Joe made some good points. There are two issues I think, from my perspective,
that I think will cause me to support the staff. The first being the issue of
secondary access, which is the express reason that Planning and Zoning gave for
denying this. The second, and I think one just as important, and I think for me
perhaps, more important, the comprehensive planning process for the Northeast
area is just underway. And if that is going to have any validity whatsoever with
the public, as we have said it does - we have told the folks that live in this area
you have an opportunity to tell us where you want your streets, where you want
this and whatever. And I think for us to do a rezoning in this area until that plan
is complete, even if it comes out exactly the same way, I think it compromises
that process. And so until that process is complete, which I think will be
relatively soon, and I would agree, don't put this on mothballs yet, but until that
process is complete, I do think it compromises the process and it says that we
don't really mean what we said.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6d page 32
Champion/ I'm going to support Planning and Zoning, but I actually have trouble with it.
Because I think we're taking a recommendation of secondary access, which I
totally understand and firmly believe in. But we're applying it arbitrarily. I
mean, if it's a safety issues and we allow one development to go in, because in the
future there's going to be secondary access, then there's no real absolute
guarantee of that, right? That's the reason we approve it. But we don't approve it
because there isn't a black line on the map saying in the future this is going to be
the secondary access. So I kind of have problems with this whole process.
Kubby/But it's got to be an imminent secondary access, not something in three years or
five years or ten years because it's on an arterial street plan or something. It's got
to be an imminent secondary access.
Champion/ What does imminent mean?
Kubby/ That it's on our capital improvements program for the next three years or
whatever, or that the developer has control of the land and has the opportunity to
create secondary access. So it's not as arbitrary as I feel like you're talking about
it. Maybe Karin can clarify that.
Franklin/ I agree.
Lehman/ Karin agrees.
Kubby/ So, I wanted to make just one brief comment, that I agree with Joe, that times
change, and it's real important to check in with things. But in terms of the
secondary access. The physical features of the land have not changed, and the
political landscape has not changed enough to make condemnation for secondary
access a feasible thing. And so, good to check in with that, but I think things
haven't changed enough. And I'll be voting no.
Lehman/ Other discussion? Roll call- (no). The ordinance is defeated. We're going to
take five minutes, folks.
BREAK
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6g page 33
ITEM NO. 6g Consider an ordinance amending the approved preliminary Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for Lot 51 of Walden Hills, containing 2.9 acres and
located within the OSA-8, Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone at the northeast comer of
Shannon Drive and Irving Avenue. (REZ97-0018) (Second consideration).
Lehman/ (Reads agenda item #6g). And we've been asked, this is second consideration,
and we've been asked to expedite this one as well.
Thomberry/ I move that the rule requiring that ordinances be considered and voted on for
passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it will finally be
passed be suspended, that the second consideration and vote be waived, and that
the ordinance be voted on for final passage at this time.
O'Donnell/ Second.
Lehman/ Moved by Thomberry very quickly, and seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Roll call- (yes). Carried.
Norton/ I think --
Thomberry/ I move --
Norton/ Pardon me. I think an important - oh, pardon me, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Dean.
Thomberry/ I move that the ordinance be finally adopted at this time.
Lehman/ Moved by Thomberry.
Vanderhoef/ Second.
Lehman/ Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Norton/ Well I just think it's important to note that what did we start with, 35 units on
this piece, I think, and we came down to 25. I think it's, and some innovative
techniques. So I just want to iterate again that it's an interesting shift, and one
that we'll want to watch carefully. Okay? It's nice.
Lehman/ Further discussion?
Thomberry/ It's interesting to note that sometimes we like to see fewer places be built,
and at other times, we compact them and want more to be built.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6g page 34
Norton/ Yeah.
Thomberry/ So, it's just imeresting.
Norton/ A variety.
Thomberry/ Variety.
Champion/ Good comment.
Lehman/ Roll call- (yes). Carded.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#6i page 35
ITEM NO. 6i Consider a resolution approving final plat of a Resubdivision of Lot 51,
Walden Hills, a 2.9 acre, 25-1ot residential subdivision located at the northeast
comer of Shannon Drive and Irving Avenue. (SUB98-0004)
Lehman/ (Reads agenda item #6i).
Thomberry/ Move to consider the resolution without reading anything further.
Norton/ Second.
Lehman/ Moved by Thomberry, seconded by Norton. Discussion?
Vanderhoef/ Have the papers been signed?
Dilkes/ Yes.
Vanderhoef/ Thanks.
Lehman/ Roll call- (yes).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#8 page 36
ITEM NO. 8 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE
OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTHGATE AVENUE AND
WATERFRONT DRIVE PAVING IMPROVEMENT AND WEST
PEPPERWOOD RELIEF SEWER PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF
BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK
TO PUBLISH NOTICE TO BIDDERS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR
RECEIPT OF BIDS.
a. PUBLIC HEARING
Lehman/ (Reads agenda item #8). Public hearing. is open. Public hearing. is closed.
b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING
Lehman/ Do we have a motion?
Thomberry/ Move adoption of the resolution.
Lehman/ Moved by Thomberry.
O'Donnell/ Second.
Lehman/ Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Norton/ Did I understand, were there going to be sidewalks on both sides of Waterfront,
or just one? Just one side?
Vandcrhoef/ Good timing.
Norton/Are there going to be sidewalks on both sides of Waterfront and one side o£
Southgate? What's the arrangement again?
Jef£McClure/ On Waterfront Drive, there's just going to be one four-foot sidewalk on
the east side.
Norton/ On the east side.
McClure/ We're going to continue down where Hy-Vee left off and take it down to the
intersection. On Waterfront, or on Southgate Avenue, that's a little up in the air.
We know there's going to be sidewalk at least on one side, east of the tracks.
West o£the tracks, where there's no development to the north and to the south,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#8 page 37
that's, we're figuring that out right now.
Norton/ And the sidewalk on Waterfront goes beyond Southgate, on down to Hilltop, or
does it stop at Southgate?
McClure/ No, we'll continue down to Hilltop Trailer Park, along the east side.
Vanderhoef/ So we will have sidewalks continuous to the bus stop to move people in that
circle?
McClure/ The bus stop which used to be located at the northeast comer of Waterfront
Drive and Southgate has been moved to Boyram and Southgate. There will be
sidewalk running along the east side of Waterfront, from Hilltop Mobile Home
Park all the way up to the Hy-Vee, you know, through the Southgate intersection.
Now, for people from Hilltop, I gather this is where your question is coming from.
The people from Hilltop accessing the bus stop, there is a segment of sidewalk on
the north side of Waterfront, or on the north side of Southgate, okay, between
Waterfront and Boyram that is not built. So there is a gap in the sidewalk.
Vanderhoef/ Okay.
McClure/ When this project is all through, there will still be a gap in the sidewalk.
Lehman/ But I believe last night, the City Engineer indicated that at our direction, he will
look into that. I think that that sidewalk will be extended.
Norton/It'd be a good time to fill it in.
Kubby/ What the options are.
Lehman/ Jeff you look nervous. Are you a new father?
McClure/ Yeah, you may have heard that, yes.
Lehman/ Are you really?
McClure/Yeah, it's true.
Kubby/ Congratulations.
McClure/ Thank you very much.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#8 page 38
Lehman/ Boy or girl?
McClure/ A little boy. Kincaid Jeffrey McClure was born on March 29th at 9:59 am,
nineteen inches long, six pounds, ten ounces. Mother and son are doing very
well.
Vanderhoef/ I hope you have pictures.
McClure/ Yes, I do. I did look into it. I talked with Rick Fosse about the sidewalk, and
the lot we're talking about right now is the lot which is owned by MECCA. And
that is a business and a property that does not pay property taxes. So our options
at this point are: the City does it out of the kindness of their heart, in which it
may or may not be fair to other owners in the other along Southgate, because we
have in the past required them to put in sidewalk in front of their businesses, so
that would be the second option, for them to do it at their own expense. And the
third would be for the City to put it in and generally what we would do is assess it
through the property taxes. But it is my understanding that because they do not
pay property taxes, we can still build the sidewalk, we just wouldn't collect it
right away. It would be until that property changed hands and it went from a non-
profit to a profit business, or a business came in that was not tax-exempt from
paying property taxes.
Lehman/ That's a discussion for another time.
Norton/ Okay.
Lehman/ We're just talking about this one now.
McClure/ Yeah. But those--
Norton/ Those are the issues.
McClure/ Those are your options.
Kubby/ Thanks.
Steve Atkins/ At this point.
Lehman/ Okay. Thank you. And congratulations.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#8 page 39
Kubby/ They could come in for CDBG monies.
Lehman/Yeah.
Norton/ Yeah, we could use that for sidewalk money.
Kubby/ Well, it would serve a low-income area. I mean, there's some rationale there.
Norton/ Or a PIN grant.
Lehman/ Roll call- (yes). Resolution carded.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#9 page 40
ITEM NO. 9 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE
OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE IOWA RIVER CORRIDOR TRAIL
PROJECT - BURLINGTON STREET TO NAPOLEON PARK, STP-E-3715(9)-
8V-52, AND DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE.
a. PUBLIC HEARING
Lehman/ (Reads agenda item #9). This is a $1,800,000 trail project to be funded in part,
$750,000 from STP funds, the rest from local-use Road Use taxes. Public
heating. is open.
Nick Kempf/ Good evening. My name is Nick Kempf, and I'm here representing Metro
Pavers as one of its owners. As some of you are aware, and some of you may not
be, we're located at 1722 Stevens Drive, which is approximately halfway
between Highway 6 and Napoleon Park, and the Iowa River Corridor Trail will
take approximately half an acre of our land along the east side of the Iowa River.
And I'm not opposed to the Trail, or we're not as a company, we're just opposed
to the location. We'd like to see it on the other side of the River. You know, I
don't know if that's possible or not, but that's our stand on it. I'm not going to
tell you that this losing a half an acre of our seven acres is going to put us out of
business, but it is going to have an impact on us. We're already leasing, on a long
term basis, two and a half acres from Tom Kennedy. And during our peak season,
employment in the summertime, our employees are using a vacant lot right now
that belongs to Southgate Development. So, any loss of property, although it's
basically just used for material storage, will have an impact on us. And, you
know, that's something that you have to decide. And from, you know, our point
of view, the trail will be much more, a better beauty product if it was on the other
side of the River and people wouldn't have to look at our equipment and our
materials that are stored there.
Lehman/ I thought we were going to put up a fence so they couldn't see it.
Kempf/ Well, that was discussed, but the City has not offered that now. They've taken
that away from us. There's a fence going up, but it won't be a visual barrier.
Norton/ Cyclone, wasn't it, or something like that?
Kempf/ Yeah, that's what we had requested, but --
Lehman/ I thought we offered you that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#9 page 41
Kempf/ You did.
Lehman/ You didn't want it?
Kempf/ We want it. But to get that, we would have to sign over the property. You
know, sign over the easement. Well, it's not an easement anymore, you've
offered to buy it. But we don't feel that the price that we're being offered is
anywhere near what we're going to need to replace the land. You know, that's
another issue for another hearing. But that's where we stand.
Norton/ Were they really talking of a visual border fence, or just a cyclone of some kind?
What kind of fence were they talking about?
Kempf/ It was original an eight-foot --
McClure (??)/ Eight-foot high privacy fence.
Norton/ Privacy fence, okay.
Kempf/ Thank you.
Lehman/ Thank you.
Terry Dahms/ My name is Terry Dahms. And I guess I realize from listening to the
previous speakers that I'm not an attorney or a land developer, so my comments
are guaranteed to be short, I think. I'm one of the co-founders of FIRST, Friends
of the Iowa City River Scenic Trail. And Casey Cook is the other co-founder.
And I think he's spoken and written to you many times about trail issues. And I
think this particular segment. As you may know, we started FIRST over ten years
ago. And our specific goal, really, was to have, to foster the development of the
trail all the way from Napoleon Park to the Reservoir. And this segment is crucial
towards that goal and vision. And I think this is where we stand tonight. As you
know, there's a grant of $750,000. The Parks and Rec. Commission is advocating
using Park Acquisition funds to help pay for land acquisition. The design is done.
Property acquisition is done. Most businesses have agreed to the trail. And the
new water plant that's going in, and the pipeline that's being laid has allowed the
trail to be piggy-backed on top of that at marginal cost. The Coralville Power and
Light Dam is going to be improved, allowing easy access to Coralville. And
Coralville is developing a network of trails. And Iowa City continues to develop
a network of trails, too: Willow Creek, for example. And all this sort of starts to
tie together. Trails like this in other communities just like Iowa City, in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#9 page 42
Muscatine, Des Moines, and Davenport, are immensely popular. And people are
immensely proud of their trails. And I guess it looks like opportunities like this
come along maybe once every ten years. And I think you as a Council really have
a unique opportunity to be recognized as having some courage and vision to go
ahead with this trail, and I think once this is done, you can look back with pride,
you know, on this trail system that we're going to have. And so I hope you
approve it. Thank you.
Larry Wilson/ I'm wearing the Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission hat tonight.
And I'd like to support the comments made by Terry Dahms. And first, you
know, this trail's been a long time in coming, and it's no secret that Riverfront
and Natural Areas Commission has supported it very strongly all along. And I
just want to remind everybody that this is not just a trail, it's a backbone system
for the entire City. It's important and most important trail of all. It's along the
River, and will bring people back to the River which is our basic heritage in this
community. So, it's a very important trail. And about four years ago, the
Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission updated the River Study, the River
Corridor Study that recommended the River Trail in the first place. And we
prioritized what needed to be done. And the trail, the report actually states that
the trail should be on each side, both the west and east side, south of Highway 6.
But we've recommended that the east side is the most important, because of its
link to the Park. So, we would urge you to keep it on that side, as you've been
planning to do. We also support the Parks and Recreation Commission in their
offer of some funds to help alleviate the costs. So, with that, we support the trail
and hope we can get on with it. Thank you.
Lehman/ Other input for the public hearing? Public hearing. is closed.
b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING
Kubby/ Move adoption of the resolution.
Vanderhoef/ Second.
Lehman/ Moved by Kubby, seconded by Vanderhoef and Norton. Discussion?
Thomberry/ Yes. I have some comments. What is the width of the sidewalk, between
Highway 6 bypass and Napoleon Park, along the street, anybody know? Eight
feet?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#9 page 43
McClure/ I believe it to be eight feet wide.
Thomberry/ That's an eight-foot sidewalk that goes parallel to the trail. I'll bet one lot-
width from the proposed trail. In other words, the sidewalk runs along the road,
not abutting up to the road, but off the road a little bit. It's an eight-foot wide
sidewalk. And just one lot-width toward the river, toward the west, is where the
proposed trail is to go. With an eight-foot wide sidewalk, which we call a trail, if
there's no trail there, we like to see eight-foot wide sidewalks to accommodate
bicycles and wheelchairs going back and forth, so there's plenty of room for them.
So, since that sidewalk, that eight-foot wide sidewalk is already from, like I say,
the distance from Highway 6 bypass to Napoleon Park, and it's just funny that the
sidewalk stops when it gets to Napoleon Park.
Lehman/ City property.
Thomberry/ City property. Don't know why it doesn't extend to the entrance of
Napoleon Park, but maybe it will. All we would need, then, is a sidewalk from
the Iowa River bridge, along Highway 6, along where Hills Bank is, up to the
comer, and the eight-foot sidewalk is already in place, all the way down, for I
don't know, a mile or so. I don't really think that we need to spend the money for
a trail that parallels an eight-foot wide sidewalk. I think the trail is basically
already there. That can be used as a trail. It's not right next to the River, but it's
not that beautiful on the other side of the River. I mean you do really have a nice
view. So, that's number one. And my second point is that I really oppose
condemning property, condemning private property for non-essential purposes.
And this is not an essential purpose. In other words, it's not for a City water line
or sewer line or a street or something like that. And I think that private property
is very important, when people buy a piece of property not to have it condemned
for non-essential reasons. So, for those two reasons, I will be voting against this.
Norton/ Ernie, I want to comment about that. It's certainly true that there's a sidewalk
there, but that means you would have trail-users crossing traffic into the bank,
traffic into the other industries or commercial enterprises that are along, or will be
along that side, that west side of Gilbert Street. This way, you have them where
they're not crossing anybody, and a good deal safer. I agree with you, there needs
to be a lot done about beautification along the River on both sides. And we are
taking the Trail off the River at some points where we just have no option, just on
the other side around National Guard Armory along there. We can't get along the
River. But it seems to me we ought to stay along the River when we can, within
reason. And I don't think the cost of that section is all that heavy. The heavier
cost is up in this tough section from Burlington down to Benton Street. Which
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#9 page 44
incidentally, I just want to comment, in 1969, that is almost thirty years ago, I
went to look at the ownership of those properties along there, and gave up in a
hurry. It was just a zoo to try to figure out how to get that done. So I congratulate
the staff and others who've brought it this far. So, I'm certainly going to strongly
support it.
Thornberry/ What's the reason for putting eight-foot sidewalks in there?
Norton/ Well, that might, that could be questioned. Since we're going to put a Trail,
maybe that's true, Dean, maybe we don't need a eight-footer there.
Champion/ I think if you're walking, an eight-foot sidewalk is nice. But I think if you're
riding a bike, to put that sidewalk down, what is it, all that sand in the street,
would be really dangerous.
CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 98-53, SIDE B
Champion/ And all the businesses and cars, you're not only going to possibly have some
impacts of cars and bikes, but you're also going to impact pedestrians and
bicycles. It's not a safe idea.
Norton/ Dean, the point that we might have made a four-foot sidewalk, that's
concedable.
Lehman/ But isn't our policy to use eight-foot sidewalks on arterials?
McClure/ Arterials.
Lehman/ And that's what, on Sand Road, what the sidewalk is supposed to be there.
Further discussion?
Vanderhoef/ I would like to make a comment.
Thornberry/ Okay.
Lehman/ I knew you would.
Vanderhoef/ Thank you. Historically, I'll go back a year or two on this, probably six
years ago, was the first I got involved with the Trails system. And I was working
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#9 page 45
with the Neighborhood Open Space Plan. And at that time, that's when I met the
people fi'om FIRST who had the vision for the River Trail. And during our
discussions and our long work to do the Neighborhood Open Space Plan, there
was friendly bantering, shall we say, about which was more important, the
neighborhood trails to connect our schools and our parks, or the River Trail. And
Casey Cook and I both had different sides of the fence on this at that time.
Because my vision always has been to make a safe way for the children to get to
and from their places of business. Their places of business are the neighborhood
stores, the neighborhood schools and the neighborhood parks. We have now got
that vision in place. We now have the ordinance in place where we get land or
money in lieu of land to produce a trail system throughout this City, to meet that
goal. I now am in a position to say yes, this is very expensive to get this spine of
this trail going, however it is now necessary because we're moving forward with
all these other trails. And this is going to connect our east and our west side of the
River. It's going to connect North Liberty at some point in time. It will connect
North Liberty through the trail through Coralville. And these are the things that
are being planned and are being done on a regional basis. They're out there right
now, they've been on the Johnson County of Government Transportation Plan
now for several years. And it's real important that we think of this more than one
segment of a little trail that is a very expensive one. I understand that. It's not
going to get cheaper. And I have this vision to keep this going in the whole
regional area, and it will be a very important piece of Iowa City and for the
region. Therefore, I will be supporting this.
Kubby/ Very well said. Thanks, Dee.
Vanderhoef/ You're welcome.
O'Donnell/ I had one question. How far is the Trail from the sidewalk, or the proposed
trail going to be from the sidewalk? The existing sidewalk.
McClure/ Along South Gilbert Street?
O'Donnell/ Right.
McClure/ How far?
?.9/ (Can't hear).
McClure/ When he said one lot, it's a good lot. It's not like a house lot. It's a, you
know, it's a subdivision.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#9 page 46
Lehman/ One to three blocks, really.
Thornberry/ No, no, no, no. It's not three blocks.
Norton/ Yeah, yeah.
Lehman/ About 1,500 feet.
Norton/ Three blocks at Southgate.
Thornberry/ At Southgate it comes way in at Southgate. Way into the east at Southgate.
Norton/ Well, I mean, it swings out.
O'Donnell/ A substantial distance from the existing sidewalk.
McClure/ Yes.
Lehman/ Any further discussion? Dean, I --
Thornberry/ It's not just, it's not just one, it's not just one piece of property that we
would be condemning. It's more than one that we would be condemning for a
non-essential use. And I just really think that private land is sacrosanct. When
somebody buys a piece of property, to take it for a non-essential use, I don't think
is fair.
Kubby/ I think some of us may disagree that providing many forms of transportation is a
non-essential purpose. I would disagree with that, and that if you really want to
live out a vision of making it possible for people to, in a practical sense, feel safe
and have convenient ways to use alternative forms of transportation, whether that
means their feet, rollerblades, skateboards, bicycles, or whatever other kinds of
wheeled vehicles are out there, other kinds of vehicles that will be out there in the
next millennium, that we have to have, this is part of our transportation system.
It's one segment of it. And I would say it's an essential purpose for the City.
Lehman/ Just one comment. I really agree with Mr. Thornberry, but I will support it.
And the reason I'm going to do that is I have objected to this because of a cost
standpoint. I don't think it is, I think it's too expensive. I think it's a part of the
trail I think should have been relocated. However, we have at each step of the
process told the staff to go ahead with this. And I think that the good faith of the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#9 page 47
Council is at stake here. And having told them to proceed with this, and given
that indication that this would take place, I will support it. Roll call- (yes;
Thornberry voting no.) Motion carded. Did we get two yeses?
Dilkes/ You bet.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#10 page 48
ITEM NO. 10 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE
OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COURT STREET EXTENDED, PHASE
I IMPROVEMENTS, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO
ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR
RECEIPT OF BIDS.
a. PUBLIC HEARING
Lehman/ (Reads agenda item #10). This is a Public heating. The public hearing. is open.
Karr/ Mr. Mayor, you may want to note the revised comment that was distributed last
evening.
Lehman/Yes, we did receive tonight a revised item # 10. We all got that.
Bob RoeIf/ Good evening. I'm Bob RoeIf. I live on the comer of Court Street and
Elmira. This weekend, you folks all were, had mail delivered in your box
delivered by a new postman, Ted Rittenmeyer, and it was the letter, and I'm one
of the four people that signed that letter on the modifications of Court Street, to
shave the hill off, to improve the line of sight problem. You heard last night that
the City Engineering Department had abandoned that plan and we're grateful for
that. We didn't like it. It scared the heck out of us. Even my owl, apparently,
was grateful for that. He lives in the tree. The solution, however, which is to
make Elmira Street a one-way, we're not real happy about that. What we've done
here, excuse me, Dean.
Thomberry/ Not a one-way, just a one-way entrance. It's a two-way street, but you can't
get out onto Court Street.
RoeIf/ Yes, that is correct. That is correct. But it is, it changes Elmira Street.
Thomberry/ Right.
RoeIf/
For those of us that live on it. What we've done is we've moved the problem
from Court Street to Elmira. Furthermore, we think some serious safety problems
have been created. There still is a line of sight problem there. Traffic that's
coming from the west to the east will go over the hill at Court and Elmira and
speed down to where Scott Park comes in. And I think that traffic is going to be
moving real fast if there's not a stop sign there. And it's going to be a dangerous,
dangerous intersection. I think the reverse is also true. So those of us that live on
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#10 page 49
Elmira and Court think that a stop sign would be a better solution, a three-way
stop sign. Furthermore, by making Elmira basically, technically a one-way at
least, we're going to push traffic down Elmira down onto Scott Park, and that's
going to affect the parking and people down there. So what we're hopeful is that
we think through this situation a little more carefully before you decide simply to
make it a one-way. We're very concerned about that. Thank you.
Norton/ Now, you're talking a three-way stop at Scott Park?
Roelf/ Yeah.
Norton/ Or at least that's your thinking?
Roelf/ Yeah.
Kubby/ No, at Elmira.
Lehman/ Elmira and Court.
Norton/ Elmira.
Roelf/
Yeah. If any of you drive Scott Boulevard, you know that traffic is just, people
seem to want to drive as fast as they can, anymore. It's scary. And I think that
Court Street, you might as well call it Court Speedway if we don't do something
there, too. Because people will come over this hump on Court Street, they'll see a
nice long stretch running east, and they're going to hit the gas. And I think we're
going to have a real speed problem there, just like we currently have on Scott
Boulevard.
Kubby/ It's really a problem because we design our streets to be driven safely at a higher
speed than we post it, for safety reasons. But you feel comfortable driving faster
on the streets because they're designed for that higher speed. And so we design
them that way for safety, but it creates some speeding problems. And it is a
strange thing that we do.
Roelf/ It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences. You try to do the right thing,
and quite often the wrong thing pops up.
Champion/ How would the people on your street feel if we did nothing? Just threw up a
sign that said "poor sight" or whatever they do.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#10 page 50
Roelf/ I think we could live with that. We are concerned. We're good citizens, too. We
don't want somebody to get blindsided or to get hit at that comer, or some little
kid out on a trike. So we'd at least like to keep that traffic going very moderately,
perhaps 25 miles an hour through that part of Court Street. Because there is a
serious line of sight problem.
Champion/ There will be a 25 mile an hour.
Roelf/ It's there.
Kubby/ It's just not posted.
O'Donnell/ Coming off Court when it hits Elmira, is there an incline there?
Roelf/ You come over the crest of Court and it flattens out and intersects with Elmira.
O'Donnell/ So it's pretty level right there?
Roelf/ Yeah.
O'Donnell/ Okay.
RoeIf/
But again, if it's made one-way, and I didn't mention this, but I will, it'll cause
me a problem getting in my driveway, because I'm going to have to make really a
180-degree turn off Court Street to get into my drive, which is fight smack almost
on Court Street. So that's a nuisance to me. I can live with that. I'm more
concerned about these other problems. I have a couple other people who want to
talk so I'll get out of the way.
Kubby/ I hope that you'll continue coming up with maybe some solutions that to know
that, I think our tendency would be not to put up a stop sign on Court Street
because it's an arterial street, and the purpose of arterial streets are to move traffic
so that people can move through them swiftly and safely, so that they stay out of
neighborhood streets. That they find the arterials to be a more smooth manner of
getting around town, so they stay out from around your houses. And so that's a
problem with putting a stop sign. So if we can keep brainstorming about all that,
that'd be great.
Roelf/ Okay.
Thomberry/ We do have a stop sign back about a block, don't we?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#10 page 51
Roelf/ No. There's no stop sign at --
Thomberry/ Is it about two back?
RoeIf/ Well, two back there is, where Scott Boulevard and Court Street --
Kubby/ Scott Boulevard.
Roelf/ Intersect. There's one there.
Thomberry/ I don't see anything wrong with having a stop sign in two blocks. I really
don't.
Lehman/ Well, I think that's a question for Traffic.
Kubby/ For Traffic Engineering.
Thornberry/ But that would be accommodating.
Roelf/ Thank you.
Lehman/ Thank you.
Donita
Langholdt/ I'm Donita Langholdt, and I live on the opposite side that Bob Roelf
lives on, on Elmira Street. And I just want to reiterate the same thing that Bob
had said about our concern about the safety of that particular are. The speed that
people will be going, potentially going on Court Street is going to be a lot faster
than the posted sign will be. We all know that speeds are faster than what the
posted signs are that people are going. On Elmira, if you would make that a one-
way street, all we have done is created a safe issue on traffic going east onto
Court, but we haven't not fixed the problem with the traffic going west on Court.
If we would make Elmira a one-way street, it would dump all of the traffic onto
Scott Park Drive. We would either have to go left or to right to get off of that
particular street. If we would go left, that would probably not be an issue. That's
the street that's going to be extended. Court will be extended. But it has not been
extended yet, so I'm presuming that a line of sight problem will not occur at that
particular intersection. But the line of sight problem on Scott Park Drive and
Court Street will be and is a problem to this day. I think that if we could prevent
accidents at that particular place, we will also need to prevent accidents on the
Court and the Elmira Streets. So, if you make Elmira a one-way, all you're doing
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#10 page 52
is dumping all the traffic, all of this traffic onto Scott Park Drive, and yet we'll go
ahead and make a stop on Court and Scott Park Drive, and then we will have to
make a very rapid turn in order to get onto Court going west. And that's only
maybe a half a block before we stop onto Scott Boulevard. Now, if the traffic is
coming off of Court and they're going up and over that hill at a perceived rate
greater then 25 miles an hour, we will not be able to safely get onto Court Street.
I've been told that the hill of Court will tolerate traffic up to 24 miles per hour for
us to safely get onto Court Street going west. But even if we set the speed at 25
miles per hour, that still is an issue of one mile per hour, and that's an issue of an
accident happening. So, I agree with Bob that if we did one of two things, and
that is to do nothing other than to put stop signs on Elmira, and to put stop signs
on Scott Park Drive, that's a possibility. Or, the other one is to put a three-way
stop. And I don't, this is not a desirable thing for me, because I'm going to listen
to stop-and-go traffic. But I think that this is the least of all of the evils. The one
that I like particularly is to put a speed bump in the middle of it somewhere. I
don't think that will happen, but somewhere along that, that will slow the traffic
down and bottom-out cars.
Lehman/ I like that one, too, but that one's apparently not acceptable.
Langholdt/ I know it's not acceptable, but it certainly seems like a very reasonable thing
if we would put one of those speed bumps like they have at K-Mart, it would take
care of your traffic very well. But I appreciate your time to listen to this, and
hopefully we can avoid a one-way on Elmira.
Lehman/ You are aware this is going to be continued, the hearing will be continued for
two more weeks, so that --
Langholdt/ Well, you may see us again, then.
Lehman/ Oh. No, you're more than welcome to come back, but I think it gives time for
you folks and the City Engineering staff to look at all the options that are out
there.
Langholdt/ Right. We were very concerned that this was being rushed through, that we
don't understand the speed of this, and we appreciate that this is being given, that
a little more time is being taken on this issue that we consider very important.
Lehman/ And I think staff is being very sensitive as far as trying to work this out.
Langholdt/ Absolutely. And we certainly do appreciate. We've received several calls
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#10 page 53
from, help me Bob, Rob.
Lehman/ Rob.
Kubby/ Rob Winstead. He's right in the back, so you can put the name to a face.
Langholdt/ And we certainly appreciate that. But we wanted to take this space to make a
formal issue of it.
Lehman/ Thank you.
Thornberry/ I even suggested last night, the little tipples, that sometimes you run over
before you get to a stop sign, indicating that there will be a stop sign coming up.
Langholdt/ Well, I think that if you're coming, going west onto Court from the non-
existent Court Street at this point in time, if you've not traveled that road, you are
not going to know that there is a stop sign at the bottom of that hill. You have no
line of sight whatsoever.
Thornberry/ But they were saying that the tipples weren't appropriate on --
Lehman/ They make too much noise.
Thomberry/ Well, you don't have to have so many ripples, maybe just a few.
Kubby/ You can't have them anywhere in the City.
Norton/ They make a lot of noise.
Kubby/ You wouldn't want them tight in front of your house.
Langholdt/ Well, possibly, our other alternative, then, would be not to build Court Street
out there at all, then.
Lehman/ I don't think that's part of our options.
Langholdt/ Well, you want solutions. I don't know how viable you want them to be.
Thank you.
Lehman/ Thankyou.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#10 page 54
Norton/ What's distressing in this, Ernie, is that we got in this position. It's been known,
I'm sure, that Court Street was going to go somewhere east.
Kubby/ Yeah, it's not that old of a street.
Norton/ Not that old, but --
Lehman/ No, the distressing part is how did the street get put in with an elevation that
was too high to start with.
Norton/ We blew it.
Thornberry/ Well, because we weren't on the Council at that point.
Lehman/ But that's done.
Champion/ That's right.
Lehman/ I don't think that reason --
Thomberry/ Well, shoot.
Ted Rittenmeyer/ My name's Ted Rittenmeyer, and I'm the postman, I guess. I just
want to support what Bob and Dot said. This problem was not caused by any of
the people who live in the area. We bought our lots and came to City Hall with
the building plans and paid our fees, and had the City approve the plans based on
the elevations that are there. And we just feel that there's, the big part of that
problem, I think, as far as I'm concerned, I think has been solved. We're not
going to shave the street down, I hope. But if I lived on Elmira, I would be very
unhappy with the one-way street being inserted in there at this point in time. And
I don't see why a three-way stop won't solve a big part of the problem. And I
might tell you that with the permission of my partner, when she gets back, we
may allow the police to park in our driveway to catch the speeders coming over
the hill from the east. If they want to use it.
Lehman/ All right.
Kubby/ They do that.
Rittenmeyer/ It'd be a good spot because we're just over the hump. But I do appreciate
your consideration.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#10 page55
Lehman/ Thank you, Ted.
Thornberry/ We appreciate your giving us alternatives. When you come up with a
problem and you say hey, this is a problem, to offer alternatives. That means
you've thought it out, and some logical things that you can live with, and we
appreciate it.
Rittenmeyer/ Well, what we came up with was on very short notice, I can guarantee you
that. The first I knew of this at all was a week ago Monday, when we received a
phone call from Rob. And I understand there was a meeting in December. We
had no notice of that meeting at all. There were some insertions in the
neighborhood bulletin which we don't get either. The assessor's office knows
where we are. And the water people.
Champion/ (Can't understand).
Rittenmeyer/ Yeah, the (can't understand).
Champion/ Some things we're really good at.
Lehman/ Ted,--
Rittenmeyer/ Thank you.
Lehman/ I'd like to thank you and your neighbors who wrote the letter. It was a very,
very well-written letter. We don't always get letters that well-written and that
considerate, and it was well done, and we appreciate the letter and obviously,
we're going to address this.
Rittenmeyer/ Bob did most of that, (can't hear).
Lehman/ Burger King tomorrow morning at 9:15. I'll buy.
O'Donnell/ Most of the letters aren't signed, are they?
Thomberry/ Yeah, Bob, we'll put it on your account, okay?
Lehman/ Any further discussion for the public hearing? If not, I would entertain a
motion to continue to it to April 28th.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#10 page 56
Kubby/ So moved.
O'Donnell/ Second.
Lehman/ Moved by Kubby, seconded by O'Donnell. All in favor- (ayes). Motion
carried. The public hearing. is continued.
b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING
Karr/ Can we have a motion to accept correspondence?
Thomberry/ So moved.
Norton/ Second.
Lehman/ We've got -- moved by Thornberry and seconded by Thomberry. I think
Norton got one of them. All in favor- (ayes). Correspondence is received.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#13 page 57
ITEM NO. 13 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND CItY CLERK TO ATTEST AN IOWA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE SUMMIT STREET BRIDGE REC ONS TRUCTION PROJECT [BRM-3715 ( 13)--
8N-52].
Lehman/ (Reads agenda item #13).
Thornberry/ Move adoption of the resolution.
Lehman/ Moved by Thornberry.
Vanderhoef/ Second.
Lehman/ Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? This is a project that's going to,
estimated cost is about $1,100,000. I think federal funds on this could be as much
as $850,000.
Thornberry/ I must be getting old. I remember when that bridge was built. But then we
saw a picture, and I thought geez, it's time to replace that bridge already, but then
we saw pictures of the understructure of that bridge, and whew.
Lehman/ Would you like to move consideration so we can talk about it?
Thornberry/ Already did.
Kubby/ Dee seconded it.
Lehman/ Oh.
Kubby/ He's talking about it.
Lehman/ You are getting old. I'm getting old. Any other discussion about the age of the
bridge?
Thomberry/ It is old. How old is it?
Champion/ Well, I don't want to (can't understand).
Norton/ Well, it was built by elves from the Black Forest.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#13 page 58
Thornberry/ Well, I don't know.
Lehman/ Roll call -
Champion/ No, I'm --
Lehman/ Oh.
Champion/ I'm, I have something to say about this.
Lehman/ Please. We'll have the elves from the Black Forest.
Champion/ No, the last time that this bridge was on the City Council's agenda, it was not
built because there was such neighborhood uproar. Because at that time, there
was actual consideration of putting a four-lane bridge there. How will the design
of this bridge be done? How would that be developed?
Thomberry/ Well--
Kubby/ Denny.
Denny
Gannon/ We had a meeting with the neighborhood a couple years ago, and we sat
down and talked to them. We're going to have another pre-design meeting
coming up here this year, yet. Probably this spring, summer sometime. And visit
with the neighborhood. I can't tell you how wide it's going to be. I know that the
neighborhood wishes it to be as narrow as possible. But there are some
requirements by the feds, as to getting the money. And one of them, they have a
minimum widths for bridges, and they also, I think one of the things that they
require is that the minimum width of the bridge be equal to the width of the
approach. And on the north side of the Summit Street bridge right now, I think
there's a southbound lane, a northbound lane, and there is a parking lane on the
west side of the street. So we're going to have to work through that issue.
Champion/ Okay. I, you know, I hope, I mean I know you'll keep it in mind, that there
is a Historic Preservation overlay in that neighborhood, and I would think the
Federal Government would totally work with you on that. Because they
developed the guidelines for what you can do to maintain the character of the
neighborhood.
Kubby/ Right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#13 page 59
Champion/So, this is a very active neighborhood as you well know.
Gannon/ Right.
Champion/ So--
Kubby/ It's going to be important, not just the width, but the design.
Champion/ I'm just saying that I'm probably going to be at those meetings, too. Oh,
right, the design's going to be really important. We know there needs to be a new
bridge. We know that.
Thomberry/ You going to be after a covered bridge or - ?
Champion/ Maybe we can get the University to help us design one. Thank you. Thanks
very much.
Lehman/ Further discussion? Roll call- (yes).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#18 page60
ITEM NO. 18 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Lehman/ City Council Information. Who would like to be first?
Champion/ I don't have a lot of information. I just want to know if there's an
appointment set up to meet with the Board of Supervisors yet. Has that been set
up yet?
Lehman/ There is an appointment tomorrow morning for us to present our proposal to
the Board and get their input.
Champion/ Okay.
Lehman/ So that is going to take place in the morning.
Vanderhoef/ Actually, they have our proposal. We are to receive back.
Thornberry/ We're going to be meeting with them.
Lehman/ There'll be a meeting. They'll be talking back and forth.
Champion/ I think it's important to know that that's going forward.
Thomberry/ Yes, absolutely.
Champion/ Okay.
Lehman/ Okay. Karen?
Kubby/ Well, in terms of George Starr leaving Planning and Zoning, I just wanted to say
thanks for all of his time. Being Chair of an important commission like that is
really a lot of responsibility and I appreciate his time there. I had a couple things.
One is I wanted to let people know about the next session in the Women's
Resource and Action Center Social Change Training. And this is a real intensive
one that's happening April 24th through 26th. And it's called "Train the
Trainers". So if you're involved with leading workshops, doing in-service
training, if you facilitate a staff or board or any kind of strategic planning, or work
with volunteers a lot, this training may be very helpful to you. And you can call
WRAC at 335-1486 for more information. Secondly, there's a new group that's
kind of in forming by some younger women in town called the Feminist Union, at
the University of Iowa. And one of the events that they're sponsoring is on April
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#18 page 61
8th, what's today, --
Norton/ 7th.
Kubby/ 7th, so it's tomorrow. Wow, how am I going to do this tomorrow? It's called a
National Day of Silence. And what it is, it's organized to show how silent our
world would be without the input of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered
people, and their allies. And what they're asking people to do is to remain silent
tomorrow from 8 am to 5 pm. I mean, what a challenge that would be. And so,
when people, rather than talking participants are handing out cards that read
"Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I support lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender fights. People who are silent today believe that laws
and attitudes should be inclusive of people of all sexual orientations. The day of
silence is to draw attention to those who have been silenced by hatred, oppression,
and prejudice. Think about the voices you are not hearing. What can you do to
end the silence." So, I would say that I support this and probably would not be
able to fully participate, as I'm teaching two different classes tomorrow, and
won't be able to do it. But I certainly want to let people know this is happening.
And lastly, because I was reminded early this week about something that I do on a
regular basis, I held office hours every Thursday from 4:00 to 6:00 at the Senior
Center, and I was reminded through a conversation how valuable they are to me.
And that I get a lot of input from people that I don't think I would get from any
other venue. People are hesitant to call during the day because of interfering with
work time, and afraid to call at night because of fear of interfering with personal
time. And so my office hours are a way that people can come and say whatever
they want to say. My only rule is no violence, and that includes yelling. So,
anything else goes. And I've done this over the last nine years, in the lower lobby
of the Senior Center. And I'm real grateful to the Senior Center for the use of that
space, and the Senior Center Commission, and the Council of Elders for allowing
that. And see about 150 to 200 people a year through that venue. So it's been
really helpful for me to hear that input in just another way. So, that's all I have.
Thanks.
Lehman/ Connie?
Champion/ I have nothing.
Lehman/ Mike?
O'Donnell/ I had one thing. Sunday morning, I was approached in this one handicapped
girl was not able to get a fide on the SEATS bus. And I contacted Mr. Atkins, and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#18 page 62
through a couple well-placed calls, by Monday at noon, we were able to qualify
this gift to ride on the SEATS bus. I wanted to thank you, Steve.
Steve Atkins/ You're welcome.
O'Donnell/ That's all I had.
Lehman/ Dean?
Thomberry/ I have something, but I' like to wait until just a minute. Just go ahead.
Lehman/ Okay. Dee?
Vanderhoef/ Me?
Lehman/ Either of you.
Vanderhoef/ Either one.
Lehman/ Dee, if you don't, you'll be --
Vanderhoef/ Okay. In case people tuned in late, I want to remind them that there is a
meeting at the Senior Center tomorrow at 1:45 by the Council of Elders to speak
about the parking ramp that is proposed on the Iowa Avenue and Linn Street
comer. Then there's another new program that is being done by our Police
Department this summer. And it's called "You've Been Ticketed" program. And
it'll be running from, actually the 1st of April it started, and it'll go through
September. It is designed to help our Police officers make a positive and lasting
impression on boys and girls in our community. The officers are going to "catch"
the youths exhibiting commendable behaviors, and cite these youngsters, and part
of this is a program that will then give them tickets to the Cedar Rapids Kernels
baseball games for the summer. So they'll be recognized for positive things.
Another thing that they will have is the opportunity for a free sub and soft drink
from the Blimpie's Subs and Salads who are also supporting this program. And I
think it's a wonderful idea. Thank you.
Lehman/ Equal time, Dean.
Thomberry/ Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to report that on Thursday evening, at
5:45, there will be an Airport Commission meeting.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#18 page 63
Lehman/ Are you going to be there?
Thomberry/ I will be there.
Lehman/ I was asked to be there, and I cannot be there.
Thomberry/ Well, yeah.
Vanderhoef/ I was too.
Lehman/ You aren't the one that asked me, but that's all right.
Thomberry/ So, anybody, and we've gotten a few letters recently about the airport and
what's going on out there. That would be a good place to learn firsthand what is
going on at the airport, and about the airport and plans for the airport.
Norton/ Where's the meeting, Dean?
Thomberry/ Again, it's Thursday night, 5:45 pm at the Bus Barn. Now, I don't know the
exact address, but it's on the southeast comer of Riverside Drive and Highway 6
bypass. For the older generation, it's the old dump.
Atkins/ For the older generation, it's the Bus Barn. For others, it's the Transit Facility.
Norton/ Transit Facility.
Kubby/ And I think it's 1200 South Riverside.
Thomberry/ 1200 South -- it's where you see all the buses. That's where it is, in that
nice brick building.
Atkins/ It's a nice brick building amongst all the other ratty buildings.
Thomberry/ 5:45 Thursday night.
Vanderhoef/ You said it.
Atkins/ Yes, I did.
Thomberry/ Everything that's going on about the airport. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#18 page 64
Kubby/ Dean, would you have time to call Marsha Boyer, is that the woman who wrote
that letter?
Thornberry/ Yeah.
Kubby/ I don't know if you have time, that would be a great invite from you.
Norton/ My turn, Ernie?
Lehman/ Yes.
Norton/ Well, several of us, actually, Ernie, Dean, and I, were at the Children's Museum
at their invitation, and it was a very impressive demonstration of some of their
interactive equipment, I guess, or that they have there, and are planning and
working with prototypes that will go in their museum when it's installed in the
Mall. But it's a very impressive place even now, and I urge people to take a look
at it. I also want to mention, for the final time, the movie that I've been pushing
all along, Back from the Brink is going to show Monday night at 6:30, for the last
time, on Channel 4. This is Back from the Brink.' Saving America ~ Cities by
Design which I think people would find very interesting and relevant to our
situation. Also, I want to mention to the Council, I want you to mark your
calendar, because we've made a commitment to perform in the Ronald McDonald
House affair which occurs on June 13th and 14th, Saturday a12ernoon, Saturday at
7:00 and Sunday at 2:00.
Lehman/ What commitment is that?
Norton/What commitment is that.
Kubby/ We're supposed to come up with a variety act.
Norton/ People are writing a piece for us, and I'm helping.
Champion/ Okay. 13th and 14th?
Norton/ It's the 13th and 14th.
Kubby/ I'm out of town, and I've told the organizers that already. I have an art fair that
weekend.
Lehman/ 13th and 14th of?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
#18 page 65
Norton/ June.
Champion/ We're going to need some rehearsal time, aren't we?
Thornberry/ Pardon?
Norton/Well, that'll be the half hours on the 1 lth and 12th. So it'll only take brief time
on the Thursday and Friday, that way we can get in and out of there at our
convenience. Saturday we have the performance. Now lookit, don't leave me in
the lurch here.
Champion/ Oh, no. It's going to be fun. We'll all do it.
Norton/ I can wing by myself if necessary.
O'Donnell/ I understood that Dale Helling was going to be the coordinator of this group.
Actually, the lead.
Atkins/ Yeah, yeah. That's good.
O'Donnell/ Is that not right?
Thomberry/ I thought that was --
Norton/Is that right? Whatever we decide.
Kubby/ He's protesting.
Champion/! think we should have some City staff with us.
Vanderhoef/ Oh, I do, too.
Norton/ They'll be there, too. And I know there are people from the University and
various places. But it's a good cause, and I think we ought to try to show up, even
if it's a little bit of a strain.
Thornberry/ Make the arrangements, you know.
Champion/Did you want me to order tutus?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798
# 18 page 66
Norton/ I'll be in touch. Okay. Go ahead, Ernie.
Lehman/ A couple things, Steve, and I think we have checked on this before, but just
prior to my coming tonight, I got a phone call from a person who lives in the
Capitol Apartments, indicating that she was having some difficulty getting across
Burlington Street, on the length of that light. And I know we did check that, and
maybe it's appropriate, but check it.
Atkins/ We check it periodically, I think, yeah. I think most of you understand it's sort
of a common and recurring complaint that if the light is long, we get complaints
from drivers.
Lehman/ Well, I don't know. I travel that intersection every day, and I don't notice it
being too short. But she indicated that she has a physical disability, and has a
problem getting across.
Atkins/ Yes. We know those folks, and we try to keep that light as long as possible
simply because of that reason.
Lehman/ Okay. And I, Dee Norton, you are going to be attending a meeting at Old
Brick.
Norton/ April 25th.
Lehman/ April 25th, on behalf of the Council.
Norton/ Yes.
Lehman/ There's going to be some work done as to what will be the future of Old Brick,
how will it be preserved and what will it be used for.
Champion/I'm also going to be there.
Lehman/You'll be there as well. But I really appreciate you folks being there. I won't
be able to go there, and I think it's very important to the community that
somebody be there to represent the people in the community. And Dee, you and
Connie can do that. But we are going to have a little bit of a breather, if you will.
Our next meeting is not until April 28th, which is a week later than our normal
meeting, so, the next meeting will be April 28th, not two weeks from tonight. I
said not two weeks, that would be three weeks.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 7, 1998.
F040798