HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-03 Transcription#2 Page 1
ITEM 2 PROCLAMATION
a. Irving B. Weber Day -August 13, 2004
Lehman: (reads proclamation)
Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is Darold Albright, representing the Iowa
City Noon Lions Club. (applause)
Albright: As was pointed out, my name is DaroId Albright, and I'm here
representing the Iowa City Host Noon Lions Club. The Noon Lion's Club
would like to thank Mayor Lehman and the City Council, for their
continued support of this Irving Weber Day. This is our seventh annual,
and we hope there are many more to come. Also in line for thanks would
be Kara Logsden of the Iowa City Public Library and Barb Coffey of the
City of Iowa City, and especially our good friends Jerry Steffenmeier and
Joe Leu of Roberts Dairy, and the locaI representative, Quality Chek'd
Dairies. Things will be a little different this year, for those of you who
have attended in the past. As an experiment, we are holding the Ice Cream
Social on Friday the 13th in conjunction with the Downtown Association's
Friday Night Concert Series. We invite you all to attend, and we thank
you.
Lehman: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#3 Page 2
ITEM 3 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED
Champion: Move adoption.
Lehman: Moved by Champion.
Vanderhoef: Second
Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Bailey: I just wanted to point out that part of this Consent Calendar is setting a
public hearing for the designation of a cultural district, which is an
exciting, I think, opportunity for the community and University
collaboration that really recognizes arts (can't hear) and arts and
entertainment destination for the State of Iowa.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#4 Page 3
ITEM 4 COMMUNITY COMMENT
Kelly: I'm Betty Kelly. I'm the co-chair of the Senior Center Commission, and
I'm here to report on the Senior Center. The volunteer recognition
breakfast was held on Friday, June 25th, and we had 89 volunteers present,
and the Senior Center Commission cooked and served the breakfast. We
have a marketing committee organized from the Senior Center
Commission, and we are going to be proactive about, going about getting
new members. Right now we have about 825 members, and we seek to do
more. We had a booth at the Johnson County Fair this year again. A little
different than we had before. We had a roulette wheel, which intrigued a
great many children while we talked to their parents about buying raffle
tickets and membership to the Senior Center. In fact we had long lines. I
happened to be there on the day in which all the preschools were there.
(laughter) We are selling tickets, raffle tickets, to the quilt this year that
was quilted by the Quilting Committee at the Senior Center, for the profit
of the Senior Center. It is a beautiful quilt; it is not only quilted but it is
cross-stitched. We're still selling tickets at the Hy-Vee's, after the fair.
The grand piano that we stored for the public library has been returned to
the public library, so we're seeking the donation of a grand piano for our
assembly hail. If you know of anybody who would like to donate a grand
piano, we would be very happy to take it off their hands. We also had the
opening reception for the pictorial review of Iowa City, 1900 to 2000, and
if you haven't had the chance to walk through the assembly room and look
at the pictures and think about where you were when some of these things
were happening, it is very interesting. It is part ora 100-year celebration
of the Post Office building. We'll be holding it all year, ending in
December. Are there are questions for us?
Wilbum: Just a comment. You might contact the United Way of Johnson County. I
believe I saw today that they had somebody who was willing to donate a
piano. I have no idea if it was a grand piano or not, but if you call the
United Way you might be able to get some information about it.
Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Wilbum. We will certainly look into it. One of the things
that is very interesting, I think, is the fact that the railroad club is
considering putting up a permanent display in the Senior Center. We
haven't quite decided where it's going to be but we think it's a fascinating
thing. If you've ever seen a railroad club's exhibits, they are very
intriguing. They have nineteen members that belong to the Senior Center,
so we're looking forward to their permanent display there on. Any other
comments?
Lehman: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
Page 4
Baker: My name is Larry Baker, at 1217 Rochester Avenue, Iowa City. I would
like to read a statement tonight. It's based upon the meeting from last
night, and with your permission I would like to read the statement and if
things have changed or if there are some corrections that need to be noted,
I'd be glad to hear them, but first of all, this is based upon what happened
last night. I timed it it's 4 minutes, 848 words. (laughter)
Lehman: Don't worry, Larry, I'm timing it too. (laughter)
Baker: I know. Just give me the sign and 1'11 speed up. I'd like to talk about your
meeting last night, in particular your discussion of the Mid-American
Energy's desire for a negotiated franchise to present the voters in 2005 on
the same ballot as the two questions already there regarding the possibility
that Iowa City might have an municipal electric company. First of all, I'd
like to thank you all, and I mean this absolutely from the bottom of my
heart because I know what you're going through, for all your work on this
issue, and I think you can agree that this is one of those issues that is one
of the most important you'll ever handle while you're on the Council,
probably more important than the number of couches on a porch, and I'd
like to base my remarks secondly on an optimistic assumption. That is
that all seven of you are doing your best to be fair to all sides in this issue.
That you are at least neutral and at best, predisposed to considering an
option that might save homes and businesses in Iowa City millions of
dollars over the next twenty-five years. I'm assuming that none of you,
the majority of you have not made up your minds. That you didn't make
up your minds two years ago, and that this whole debate has just been
empty. I don't think that's tree. I think you're ail open to the possibility
that lower energy costs and local control might be in the best interest of
Iowa City. So, the discussion last night centered on a simple question:
should the Council and staff spend their time negotiating a new franchise
agreement with Mid-Amehcan to be put on the ballot, knowing full well
that such a ballot issue is not binding on the next Council. As is obvious
from the discussion last night, the question might be simple but the answer
is not. So let me ask you to be honest with yourself right now. Does this
negotiation really make any sense? Not only does it not make sense, in
my opinion, to have your time and staff time negotiating this, and I look
for a literary, literate profoundly, writerly word to describe the process
(laughter) but basically what I came back to is this is just a dumb idea. In
the discussion last night, Connie Champion, who I have never regretted
voting for her seven years ago.
Chmnpion: Did you really vote for me? (laughter)
Baker: Connie Champion offered the best insight. You cannot negotiate a
franchise with Mid American and maintain the appearance of neutrality,
and you cannot agree with Mid American about a franchise, and then
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#4 Page 5
expect the voters to accept your rationalization that even though you came
to the conclusion that such a franchise is a good thing, you are still not
advocating that it be adopted. If you negotiate with Mid American of a
new franchise, you're about to start a process that best exemplifies the
concept of a slippery slope. Confusing at best; and looking bad at worst.
So what do you do? You cannot negotiate rates in a franchise. We all
know that, but the other possibilities that were mentioned by the City
Attorney, it's a fact that all of them are achievable with a municipal utility
and more, and that's the beauty of local control. The comment was made
last night that having the public power issue on the ballot in 2005 meant
that the City had better leverage in negotiating a good franchise with Mid
American, but as Connie pointed out last night as well...that's two for
two, Connie...the leverage you have is merely the fact that Mid American
wants a franchise and the City does not need a franchise. That is your
leverage. So what do you do? I mean the obvious approach is also the
best approach. Mid American wants a franchise; they have the legal right
to present one to the voters, even without your seal of approval. Let them
do it. Tell the specifics to the voters on their own, and for your own
integrity you must avoid the perception that Mid American is merely
pulling strings and making you dance, and last night, coming to a close,
Emie. Last night you did the right thing. You postponed the decision.
You have lots of time. So all I'm asking tonight is that the majority who
seemed inclined to jump on the Mid American bandwagon last night, that
that majority tread very carefully in the future. And as for the minority
last night, those who saw the pitfalls of the negotiation process, you were
right. But as you know, being right in the minority is not as much fun as
being right in the majority, so do not give up. Finally, all of this would be
a moot point, that's my token gesture to all the lawyers in the audience, a
moot point if Mid American would simply offer a new franchise with
Iowa City that would guarantee we pay the same rates for electricity as the
owner and chief executive officer of Mid American pay. That's all I want.
To pay the same for electricity as Warren Buffet and David (can't hear)
pay, but that would mean that I lived in a town that had public power, just
like they do. So thanks very much for your consideration tonight, and
thanks very much for all your work on this issue past, present, and
future.
Lehman: Thank you, Larry.
Grismore: My name is Steve Grismore. I llve at 2207 H Street. Most of you know
me as the Director of the Iowa City Jazz Festival. I'm here tonight to, two
things, to thank some people and also to request some support, and I'm
going to read you a letter first, and if you have some questions for me,
please do that. It says: Dear City Council, thank you for your support of
the 2004 Iowa City Jazz Festival. The City of Iowa City has always been
a major financial supporter and helpful partner for the Jazz Fest. In
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#4 Page 6
addition to the City Council, all of you, I'd like to recognize some of the
City employees who have been helpful to us these past few years,
including Andy Rocca of the Fire Department; Tim Wagner of the Police;
Rick and John, streets; Chris O'Brien and the park; and Sherrie Thomas,
Parks and Rec; Dale, Steve and Cathy in the office, they see a lot of me
and they're very helpful. They put up with me, I should just put it that
way. I'd also like to remind everyone that the Iowa City Jazz Festival has
become an important tradition in Iowa City. We've been here for thirteen
plus years, going on our fourteenth year. Fourteen actual festivals, and
next year will be fifteen. We have grown both in size and stature as time
has passed. We are recognized nationally as one of the finest free events
of our kind, and have won numerous local awards, including the "Best oi"
award voted by the readers of the Press-Citizen; the last three years in a
row we have been voted that. The economic impact of the festival is hard
to gauge, but according to Josh and the folks at the CVB and using a
formula that he gave me, the impact of the Iowa City Jazz Festival these
past years, totals somewhere around $10 million in tourist money spent.
This includes hotels/motels, shopping, food, drinks, gas, and money spent
at the actual event. The Jazz Festival, in my opinion, has finally found its
ideal location: the Pentacrest. Now, of course, the idea of downtown
Iowa City doing collaborations with the University and the City of Iowa
City, this is ideal because part of the festival is on the Pentacrest, and the
other half, of course, is still on Clinton and Iowa Streets as you all saw this
year. The move to the Pentacrest involved new additional costs that were
deemed necessary by all. Bigger and better staging, lights, sound,
generators, etc., but for the first time in the history of the event we are in
debt. And there are two major factors contributing to this situation.
Number one, the lack of state grant money. The festival received, just to
put a perspective, approximately $20,000 in grant money in 2002 and a
little over $22,000 in 2003. I can also state that since I've been director of
the festival in 1999, we've always received the organizational grant. This
year we received zero dollars from the State of Iowa grant money. We did
receive a small grant, a $2,000 grant, from the CVB - not to say we didn't
receive any grant monies anywhere, but from the state, zero. I also, so
whatever that means, my expectations, you could even go 50% of an
expectation and still expect to have received close to $10,000, which we
did not get. Rain, both Friday and Saturday, was bad and affected the
event. We estimated loss in product sales, product sales meaning t-shirts,
hats, posters, also water and ice, somewhere between $3,000 and $4,000.
So, I'm asking the City for help on this one-time deficit, and this is the
first time ever in the history of the event that we've had any in the red.
We've been close a few times, but this is the first time we've actually
gone in debt. The board, and the board is looking at new sources of
revenue. We're trying to expand the board for next year, and all possible
ways to prevent this situation in the future. Sincerely. So, and right now
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#4 Page 7
we're about $9,000 plus in debt, just so you know where our numbers are
on. Okay? So, and I'm asking for help.
Lehman: Do you have a letter you're going to give us?
Grismore: I have a copy of what I've just read that I can give you.
Lehman: I would suggest that you give that to the Clerk. Would the Council like to
discuss that at a work session? Steve, put that on a work session for us.
You have our attention. Give her the letter. Do we have a motion to
accept correspondence?
Wilburn: Move to accept correspondence.
Elliott: So moved.
Lehman: All in favor? Your letter has been received.
Grismore: Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Steve. Any other public comment? If not we'll go to
Planning and Zoning matters.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5a Page 8
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS
a. AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP
TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (25+ DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR
APPROXIMATELY 1.34 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF S. GILBERT STREET SOUTH OF
RALSTON CREEK
1) Public Hearing
Lehman: Public hearing is open. I would like, before we hear from the public, if
Karin Franklin, if you would kind of give, frame the issue for us, and then
we have Bob Brooks, I believe, from the Planning and Zoning
Conunission, who will also give Council their take on this, and then we'll
proceed.
Franklin: Okay, as you mentioned, this is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,
which also links with the next item on the agenda, which is a rezoning of
the property from community commercial to high-density residential. The
question before the City Council is whether to change the Comprehensive
Plan, to change the land use on the east side of the Gilbert Street corridor
from commercial to residential. It has been shown as such in our
Comprehensive Plan since 1978, and has been used in that manner also.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended in favor of the
application to amend the plan and to rezone the property to RM-44 by a
vote of 4 to 2, with two of the Commissioners voting no and one of the
Commissioners being absent. The staff continues to recommend denial,
based on the premise that we do not find a compelling reason to change
the designation for land use in this area, an area for commercial
development close to our downtown. I think that encapsulates it. If you
want to now hear from Mr. Brooks?
Lehman: Yes, thank you.
Brooks: As Karin indicated, the Plarming and Zoning Commission reviewed this
request at its June 3rtl and June 17th meetings, and one of the first things
we did was look at the Comprehensive Plan. Now as Karin indicated, that
has shown the intersection area there and surrounding properties of south
Gilbert and Bowery, and Prentiss, as commercial. We looked at that and
the first thing we did was question whether an indication of commercial
that was twenty-six years old was still viable, given today's conditions and
cimumstances and needs and so on and so forth. We had to kind of couple
this along with the request with zoning because they kind of work
together, but as we looked at this general area, we, I don't think we tried to
let our decisions be driven by any market demands or by any kind of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5a Page 9
consideration for a certain zoning class. We were looking at it in terms of
what that area would support and handle, and one of the issues that was
high on our list of concerns was the congestion on Gilbert Street. Gilbert
Street is a very heavily traveled street, over 20,000 vehicles a day. The
intersection with Bowery and Prentiss is an offset intersection, which
creates conditional congestion and confusion, and we were concerned
about the access to this property for commercial purposes. There was an
indication that the Gilbert Street corridor was intended to be fairly
commercial, but when we looked at the nature of some of that commercial
business, it didn't seem to fit with what was kind of being indicated to us
as the type of commercial activity that staff was thinking of, in terms of
walk-in commercial type activity that would serve the adjacent high-
density neighborhood. That much of what was being looked at was drive-
in, vehicular oriented commercial activity, and much of what exists along
Gilbert Street was that vehicular access type commercial activity. So, the
access to the site, the fact that it's served by a dead-end alley, which
limited access to the rear of the property for delivery trucks. I don't think
we felt it was appropriate that the applicant or the property owner should
bear the brunt of having to provide a circulation route through the alley
and through their property, that may also be used by adjoining property
owners as an access, an egress, to their properties in the RM-40. So
basically I think that our decisions primarily came down to questioning
whether the continuation of all of this area, given the fact that some of the
ama that's shown as commercial in the Comprehensive Plan is actually
high-density residential. Whether it was necessary to continue that
designation in the Comprehensive Plan, or whether there might be a better
use for this property given its access issues, and the congestion and high
use of Gilbert Street, to something maybe more in association with the
RM-44 high-density residential that was directly to the east of that
property. And there was, as Karin mentioned, a 4 to 2 vote, with one
member absent.
Lehman: Thank you very much. Anyone from the public wish to speak?
Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. My name is Joe Holland.
As you know from, I think the minutes you have and what you've seen of
this project, I'm here representing Jim Clark and his family, the owners of
the property we're concerned with tonight. I'm going to talk about the ·
Comprehensive Plan and the zoning issue really as if they were one,
because I agree with Mr. Brooks. It's very hard to separate out those two
issues. He indicated that this property had been reviewed at the two
meetings in June. Actually it has a little bit longer history than that in
Planning and Zoning. The original application was filed back in January,
requesting a rezoning of the property to CB-5. So Planning and Zoning
actually had an opportunity to Iook at this property back in February at its
meetings, and for various reasons, that application was withdrawn and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5a Page 10
resubmitted as an application for RM-44 zoning. It seemed more
appropriate based upon the discussions at the Plarming and Zoning
Commission meeting, and based upon staff comments in their report at the
time. And when that was submitted, one of the staff members indicated
that he didn't see any problems with rezoning to RM-44 for the north 140
feet of this property, and there's about, I think, another 180 feet in addition
to that. When it came time to be presented to Planning and Zoning
though, the staff recommended denial and that's the position they've
maintained to this time. And as Mr. Brooks noted, Planning and Zoning
did vote 4 to 2 to approve a reconunendation to the Council to rezone the
property. I've said this before, and before the Commission, and I'll say it
again, I think there's really a question of whether the Comprehensive Plan
needs to be amended, although given the age of this designation, it might
be appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan is a broad brush. It's intended
to paint a broad map of the area, rather than be terribly site specific. And
if you'd indulge me I have a map I'd like to give to each of the Council
members. This is a map which illustrates the surrounding zoning. The
blue area on the map is RM-44 zone. As you can see, in effect, the CC-2
zoning on the site is really an island within a lot of RM-44 zoning. All the
property to the east is zoned RM-44, property to the south, to the north,
and a tract to the southeast is zoned RM-44. As far as the Comprehensive
Plan is concerned, and rezoning, RM-44 really is an appropriate area-wide
use of this property. The residential use under RM-44 is consistent with
other uses along this part of Gilbert Street, and properties to the east.
There's been a lot of talk about the commercial corridor and how that has
been shown on the Comprehensive Plan. There's been a lot of discussion
about that in the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. I would
maintain that that commercial corridor actually starts south of Bowery
Street, where it intersects with Gilbert. If you think about the topography
along Gilbert Street. This particular site...all the properties are elevated
above Gilbert Street. You go down over the hill past Bowery, it levels
out. Everything is level. That's where these auto-oriented uses are.
That's where the commercial activity is on the Gilbert Street corridor. On
the east side of Gilbert Street you have to look long and hard to find
commercial uses. The Plasma Center, which is just immediately north of
this property, is a commercial use, but from there you have to go to John's
Grocery which is several blocks north. That's the last commercial use on
the east side of Gilbert Street, north of this property. If you go south,
there's residential and once you start down that hill, it's commercial all the
way down, as far as it's been developed down Sand Road. So, I think that
if you look at the west side of Gilbert Street, with the commercial that's
there, and it's largely dominated by food and beverage, bars, grocery
stores...those sorts of establishments. The demand for commercial uses
on Gilbert Street simply doesn't exist in this area. What exists is a
demand for residential space, which (can't understand) downtown, and
perhaps utilizes commercial services that are south of this property. A
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5a Page 1I
change in the Comprehensive Plan seems very appropriate, based upon
what's happening in this area and what's happened over the last number of
years as this area has been built out and has a more modem use than what
may be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. I want to talk a little bit
about the rezoning. Jim Clark is going to get up and speak in a minute. I
think one thing he's going to make clear is that commercial development
is not going to happen on this property. It's not going to be redeveloped in
that fashion. I started working on this project, I would guess, probably
over a year ago, trying to see what could be done there, and after all that
exhaustive study, and I think he has some drawings and plans he may
show you, he's convinced and he's convinced me that commercial
redevelopment is not feasible. If it's going to be commercial use, it's
going to be what's there now. Jim can explain that better than I can. He
probably knows certain parts of the zoning ordinance better than any
living individual in Iowa City because for him it's bedtime reading. For
the rest, it's an advocation. There really isn't a demand for commercial in
this area. For twenty some years I've represented the owner of the
property across the street, which has the Vine Tavern on the lower level,
and for probably eighteen of those twenty years they've tried to rent the
upper story of that building. There simply isn't commercial demand in the
area, and no one wants to invest money in a property where the demand
doesn't exist. And certainly if it were going to be a bar or restaurant, a bar
which is a potential use in the area, I don't think that's something the
Clark family sees as a need or a want in that neighborhood. But, there are
a lot of positives in this project. I think the Council's all aware that the
traffic planners want to put a turn lane in at this area so you can turn left
onto Bowery Street. Mr. Brooks was on the mark when he said this is an
offset intersection, it's a terribly congested intersection. One of the things
that the Clarks are willing to do, is to give to the City eight to nine feet of
right-of-way in order to construct that turn lane. Otherwise, the City, I
assume, if you intend to proceed with that, is going to have to acquire it at
some significant cost and so it will probably involve severing the access to
all of these properties because the topography will change. If you've
driven by there and looked. All the drives, there are three driveways I
believe one to the Mansion, one in front of Falbo's Pizza, and one at
Culligan. They all ramp up into the property. If you take off eight feet of
that, you've increased the grade which you have to ramp up into, and
effectively probably eliminated access from these properties from Gilbert
Street. One of the benefits of redevelopment of this property in the way
the Clarks are proposing is to lower that profile, remove some of that,
bring it closer to grade so when that turn lane is put in, it won't be as
problematic. There's probably still going to need to be a retaining wall
along there, maybe, maybe not, but if it is, it will be much lower. I do also
have the elevations of what this property might look like from Gilbert
Street, and I'd like to give each of the Council members a copy of that
also. I'm somewhat apologetic of giving you such a wide drawing, but I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5a Page 12
think it's important to illustrate what this project is about. In recent years,
probably since the early 1980's, most of the apartments built in Iowa City
have been flats. That's one apartment stacked on top of another. These
are townhouses, which will be, each of those fronts you see will be an
independent living unit with an apartment in the back and an apartment in
the front. This is a very nice building. I don't know how many of you
remember the old Boyd and Rummelhart Plumbing Shop, which is
immediately to the southeast of this. It's the tract to the southeast that's
shown as blue multi-family residential. It was a tremendous eyesore to
this community. That's one of the properties in the area which Jim Clark
redeveloped in the early 1980's, and took what was an eyesore and turned
it into a very attractive property, which is very complimentary to the
Mansion. These townhouses right next store to the Mansion would also be
very attractive and very complimentary to the Mansion. That's a real
positive. It's a positive for the community. I do want to respond to a
couple of concerns that have been raised by Mr. Skaugstad about parking
in particular. In a lot of ways I think this project stands the potential to
actually alleviate some of the parking congestion in the area because the
current building plans, the ones...you haven't seen all the floor plans that
go with this, but provides actually twenty-four more spaces of parking
than required by City code, which gives the opportunity to relieve some of
the parking congestion in the area, and certainly not increase that burden.
Mr. Skaugstad is concerned about conflicts between commercial delivery
vehicles and residential vehicles in the alley. If this is rezoned and this
project is built, his will be the only commercial use. Most of those cars
will probably sit in the building all day because everybody knows the
challenges of parking in downtown Iowa City, and for the most part,
tenants in this area leave their vehicles and either travel on foot or on the
City shuttle bus to the downtown area. So I'm not sure there really are the
conflicts that might appear at first blush. Taking some of the commercial
traffic out of that alley that now services Falbo's, that now services the
Culligan property, probably actually prolonged the life of that alley, which
is another of Mr. Skaugstad's concern. This proposal does close all the
access from this property to Gilbert Street, whereas the combination of
putting in a turn lane, closing those accesses, will really help with that
congestion on south Gilbert Street in this particular area. In summary, I
think it's appropriate to change the Comprehensive Plan. It reflects what's
happening in this area; it reflects the demand in the area; it reflects what
should be that entire Gilbert Street corridor. In rezoning this particular
site, has a lot of positives, removes a lot of negatives, and I hope the
Council will agree and do that. If you have any questions I'll be happy io
try and address those, and I think Jim has some comments about some of
the more technical issues.
Champion: Do you happen to know how wide the alley is?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5a Page 13
Holland: I believe it's a standard twenty-foot alley, and I think it's paved.
Champion: And because it's a dead-end alley, well maybe Mr. Clark can answer, what
are the plans to keep that alley from becoming blocked by people leaving
their cars or delivery vehicles? I'm worried about access.
Holland: Well, there'll be parking at the back of this building, and I think, plans
evolved over the course of time, but I think the plan is to have parking that
will be surfaced parking in the back and be blocking that parking, and it's
a problem in any alley in terms of enf0rcement. There'll be ....
Champion: But there's usually another way out.
Holland: Not always, but you're right, often. But if you really have the alley
blocked, there's no other way downtown when you have an alley blocked,
you can only go one direction in a lot of instances. There is an outlet, I
believe, onto Van Buren Street, between two properties, which is not
particularly a good thing but, you know, and hopefully there won't be that
much blockage, particularly by commercial vehicles. I wouldn't think the
passenger vehicles in there, unless they're parked side by side, would
block the alley. It would be more of a commercial vehicle, and Mr.
Skaugstad will be the only user and he does have the area next door to pul1
into.
Elliott: Quickly, I missed your comment on Gilbert Street, will there be an access
onto and/or off of Gilbert Street?
Holland: The intension is no, there will not be. The access will be through the
alley. There are problems associated with the elevation of the property
and to bring traffic in from Gilbert Street. One of the issues at the
Planning and Zoning Commission was how steep would a drive have to be
to get in there, and there's a disagreement over that. If you slope a lot all
the way from the very front of the lot to the very back of the lot, you can
get a 3% grade, as it currently exists. I don't know what happens if you
take off the eight feet, but as a practical matter, that doesn't work because
if you put a building in there, and parking, if there were parking, it would
have to come in on the north side of the building. You'd have to have
entry under the building, which means you have to elevate both the
building and elevate the drive to get cars down under it. That was a
consideration, but it's not a practical solution for parking on this site.
There still would be parking with the building, but it would access off the
back offthe alley. Any other questions from Council? Thank you for
indulging me the time, Mr. Mayor and Council members.
Clark: My name is James Clark. I'm going to address both those last two issues;
the one about the alley being blocked and the access onto Gilbert Street,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5a Page 14
but first of all, Mr. Wilbum brought up a question about somebody
coming up (can't hear; away from mic) First of all, there are three
accesses out of that alley. There are three driveways back there; you can
get out of any three of them. We could put fire lane signs in there, and
students usually kind of watch that. If it's a fire lane they stay...
Champion: I'm worried about access by emergency vehicles, not...
Clark: Well they could come in through the drives also. There are three ways, off
of Van Buren Street that would work. As for the Gilbert Street access,
that's going to be a three-lane highway going down through there.
Making a turn to the left with an access coming down, is going to be very
difficult. We have an access right now offofRalston, and it's...I mean I
even cut the trees to the left and make sure you can see what's going on.
With a five-lane, I just, and the slope that would have to be at the end of it,
I think it'd be rather dangerous in the winter because it takes a couple
hours to get over there and get it plowed, and by that time the students
have flown through there. A hundred cars have gone through there
maybe, and there'd be ice and so on on it, so no, there would be no access.
The handout I gave you is, gives you about four or five different buildings.
Start out with a large one, showed you how I'd be minus a number of
spots for parking. It went to a next size down, to the smallest. As you get
smaller you almost get worse off because you end up, the last one, is only
6,000 square feet and that is smaller than the Culligan building that exists
right now. So, it wouldn't be viable to tear down everything and put up a
building equal just to Culligan's as such, but it does give you an idea of
why commercial will not work in there. You would actually have a
parking ramp. You'd have to have two to three tiers going up and then
your commercial would be on the fourth floor, which is kind of unfriendly
for commercial. And then your, whatever, apartments, there'd be flats on
top of that. The project we have there is a three-story townhouse like Mr.
Holland was talking about. It's unique. It's like the brownstone in
Chicago, and it is four-bedroom, but the bedrooms are upstairs like the top
two floors, could be combined. The top one could be combined into one
bedroom, the second floor could be a living room so you'd end up really
with a one-bedroom complex, and these will be condo, and they could be
sold in the future to locals. I mean, somebody who wanted to walk, it's
not that far to walk to downtown from these units. They're quite unique.
They've got great views from both sides. They're not looking into another
apartment complex ten feet away. Mr. Holland covered a number of these
items. I guess it is understood that the bridge, there are concerns about
140 feet of the first, first 140 feet and then the retaining wall would be
after that, if this was commercial, which again, makes it very difficult to
make the commercial work. It would be, you're going to have an eight
foot retaining wall, and if you have access, if that access was going in
there, you wouldn't see people coming along because they would be
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5a Page 15
behind the wall, and kids, or even people on bicycles would not be visible
as you come down. If by chance you miss them, but it still would be very
dangerous for them. I believe Joe covered almost everything in there,
other than it was brought up about being a four-bedroom. It would require
more parking. Actually a two-bedroom requires two parking spots, and a
three cars, and a four cars three. So you'd have one more parking spot.
This lot is 48,000 square feet. It could take forty-eight apartments. We're
only putting on twenty-two to twenty-three apartments on it. So we're
only half of what would, could be placed on the lot. I'm more interested
in putting up something unique, doing something actually for Iowa City.
Flats...we have no interest in right now. I think we have a number of
them sitting out there vacant. Hopefully it works itself out, but these I
think will be highly desired. I mean, probably myself even some day live
in one of these. These are very nice units, and they won't be highly
expensive. I mean, they're, there will be a dollar to them, but we, I don't
build to sell. So I'm building something that's going to help Iowa City,
and we do need that turn lane no matter what. And we have to improve
that lot in order to get that turn lane, I think. Otherwise that retaining wall
will give us a lot of problems. Can I answer any questions?
O'Donnell: I have one question. Joe said something about extra parking spaces.
Clark: Did you see any...what we really have is three to a unit. Actually we'll
only use two though. Our records show us down at Ralston we're so close
to the downtown area, that we're only going to need two, so it gives us
actually twenty-four extra parking spots, which gives us a cushion. I
mean, that will help the area in itself of anybody that has extra cars over
there, we'll try to acconmaodate them as such. Right across the street
you're only required in CB-5 to have three quarters of one parking spot on
lot. I'm going to, for this unit, and I'm going to have three parking spots
so I've got an abundance of parking. Anything else I can...? Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Jim. Anyone else wish to speak to this issue?
Vanderhoef: Just this retaining wall.
Lehman: If we're going to close the public hearing, then we can have discussion
Vanderhoef: I was just going to ask Karin for a piece of information.
Lehman: Karin?
Vanderhoef: From a perspective of City engineering, do you or does engineering think
we need a retaining wall?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5a Page 16
Franklin: We do not expect that with any redevelopment of this site, we're going to
need a retaining wall because that grade will be changed to accommodate
the development. I think what Mr. Clark is talking about, is if nothing
happens on this site, and it's just the way it is right now (TAPE ENDS)
But, if any redevelopment takes place on the site, commercial or
residential, that grade will change, and it can be changed such that there is
not the need for that retaining wall.
Vanderhoefi Okay. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Karin.
Holland: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to make a request that the documents which we
presented be made part of the record of the hearing of tonight. That's all I
want to say.
Lehman: Actually, Marian will see to it that they are.
Kan': I don't have copies.
Lehman: Oh, here. Do we have a motion to accept correspondence?
Wilburn: Move to accept correspondence.
O'Dom~ell: Second.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second. Ail in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
Public hearing is closed. Do we have a motion to consider?
2) Consider a Resolution
Champion: Move first consideration.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion; seconded by O'Donnell.
Dilkes: Just a resolution.
Lehman: I beg your pardon?
Champion: Oh, it's just a resolution.
Dilkes: Resolution on the Comprehensive Plan first.
Champion: So just move adoption.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5a Page 17
Lehman: Okay. Discussion?
Elliott: I will, as I said last night, I am disappointed that there is a level of
specificity in the Comp Plan that requires this kind of action, but I
understand why in its present form legally it's needed. I just wish we
didn't have that level of specificity.
Lehman: Other discussion?
Vanderhoef: Well, I am very tom with this. I still think we need to have commercial in
this area. What I'm looking at is the total plan for the area, and the use of
all the properties around there, above and beyond this particular property.
And so viability for a commercial space may change over time, but we
also always when we're looking at a Comprehensive Plan, we're looking
into the future ten years, twelve years, sometimes a whole lot longer. As
you can see this has been zoned the same way since the 70's, and this has
been the vision all along is to have commercial along there. I also look at
the viability of the other properties around there. The more that we mix
the ground level with housing and commercial, the less incentive perhaps
there is for someone to come down and frequent the area for the
commercial pieces that are still left there. So, I understand some of the
challenges we have on this, but I would still like to keep the
Comprehensive Plan as is and see if we can't work out a way to do a
commercial on the first floor of this property, and that would also decrease
the density in an already dense area.
Lehman: Other discussion?
O'Donnell: Well I'm going to support amending this. I think it's a tremendous project
for the area. I question the economic, the financial viability of commercial
in that area, and this lot is set up...did I understand, for forty-six units?
We're going to have twenty-two? I think this is a tremendous asset to
Gilbert Street, and I think the people living in these will certainly make the
existing commercial areas more viable, but I will support this.
Bailey: I continue to believe that the best use of this space is commercial, and I
have separated the question. I have no doubt that Mr. Clark will do a
wonderful development, but I'm looking at the land use and I think it's
really important that we maintain the commercial zoning that we have
there. We constantly talk about our commercial and industrial tax base,
and yet to rezone for residential seems inappropriate to me. Additionally,
with all the residential to the east, it seems likely that with the right
commercial venture that there is a captive audience in so far as pedestrian
and walk-in, like student sort of thing, and it doesn't necessarily have to
be a bar. Students also consume quite a bit of food. There's a Falbo's
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5a Page 18
pizza there. I think that that ~vould be a growing proposition, but I will be
voting no because (can't hear) should remain commercial.
Wilbum: I think it's important too to maintain some commercial space. I think it's
important to have the Comprehensive Plan. I think the Plan is flexible. I
agree, there's no doubt Mr. Clark will do some nice work with the
residential, but I think it's important to maintain that commercial
opportunity. I think also it is a high pedestrian area, and not just students.
There are other folks who live in some of the neighborhoods that come
around that area. So, I, in my opinion, there would be an opportunity for
something to be, you know, maybe (can't understand) but again in the
future, it may be an opportunity, and then you know it's one thing to look
at it on a map but just standing on the comer there, it almost has a mini-
mall type feeling as an entrance into the downtown area. So I will be
supporting we maintain the Comprehensive Plan.
Lehman: Well, I'm going to support the change, and I happen to agree with the staff
100%. If you look at the map, and you look at the commercial in that
spot, that makes really good sense, until you look at the creek and you
look at the streets. Court Street dead-ends on Gilbert Street. There is a
three-block distance between Bowery and Burlington Street, with no cross
street. The only access, from my perspective, for that property to be
commercial and to be successful is almost going to have to accommodate
a significant number of drive-in, of folks driving in. That is not something
that I envision as a good thing for Gilbert Street, and if you look at the
pedestrian access to that property, I think first of all Gilbert Street is a very
viable barrier for pedestrians. I don't think they're going to walk across
that street easily, just as people really don't cross Burlington Street very
easily. If you live to the east of this area, you are going to have to walk to
Burlington Street or Bowery Street and walk all the way around to get to
commercial. To me, I do not believe that it is viable; even though I think
that conceptually it's a tremendous concept, but the creek, the topography,
and the fact traffic circulation is such that I will support the change. Any
other comments? Is this a voice vote? Roll call.
Dilkes: It is. You might want to determine whether you've got four yes votes
before you vote because if you don't you're going to have to have a
consult with P&Z.
Lehman: Are there...well, okay.
Dilkes: I can count three.
Champion: What are you counting for?
Lehman: Yes votes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5a Page 19
Elliott: Yes votes.
Lehman: We do have...okay, all those in favor...I'm sorry. The motion carries 4 to
3; Vanderhoef, Wilbum, and Bailey voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Io~va City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5b Page 20
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS
b. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.34 ACRES FROM
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) ZONE TO HIGH
DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-44) ZONE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 520-522 S. GILBERT STREET
(REZ04-00012)
1) Public Hearing
Lehman: Public hearing is open. This is the same area as the last public hearing. I
assume the same comments are relevant. Public hearing is closed. Do we
have a motion?
2) Consider an Ordinance
O'Dormell: Move first consideration.
Vanderhoefi Wait...
Wilburn: Are we going to do first consideration and then meet with Planning and
Zoning or...?
O'Donnell: We don't have to. (several talking at once)
Vanderhoef: The only thing that I put out to see if Council has any thoughts about this
that with a rezoning we can do conditional zoning agreement, and I don't
know whether P&Z talked about any of that. There was nothing brought
forward that I saw.
Lehman: What would you be interested in?
Vanderhoef: Well I wondered if we needed some conversation about it.
O'Donnell: Well I've moved the first consideration. I think before we discuss it we ...
Dilkes: Wait, was the public hearing closed?
Lehman: Yes.
Dilkes: There's no conditional zoning agreement aI2er the public hearing closes.
Lehmm~: Okay, we have first consideration by Mike O'Dormell. Second?
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5b Page 21
Elliott: I'll be voting in favor of this, but I would like very much to see if there is
not a way that there could be access from Gilbert Street. I would like to
see another way in and out of there, even if it's not one that's often used.
Secondly, last night we talked about our zoning is not market driven, but I
think the zoning has to look at market reality, and to me the reality is this
is not viable. There is at least one similar apartment or condo complex
where the ground level commercial space has gone wanting, not as much
as I had thought last night but it is still vacant, and I just think this is a
better use of this, and if it isn't this, it will probably be nothing for the
foreseeable future.
Champion: Well I also am supporting it, obviously, and I didn't comment why but I
think it's just good for Gilbert Street.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 5 to 2; Wilbum and Bailey
voting in the negative, correct? Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5c Page 22
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS
c. REZON1NG APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES FROM PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT HOUSING - HIGH DENSITY SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OPDH-12, TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT HOUSING - MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OPDH-8, FOR LOT 77 OF WALDEN
WOOD PART 6, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS
OF JENSEN STREET (REZ-04-00006)
1) Public Hearing
Lehman: Public heating is open.
Holland: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I'm here on behalf of Southgate
Development, the applicant on this project. This is downzoning which
will actually reduce the density on the property from approximately
twenty-four to approximately ten units. It's also in-fill development ora
lot which is just, for a number of years, it provides some assets to the
community in terms of a trail connection to the existing trail system and a
bridge across the creek. All in all it seems to be an appropriate action for
the Council to take to approve this. We would ask that you expedite this.
This is just a preliminary proceeding. We do have to come back for a
final, and Southgate would like to have the opportunity to install the
infrastructure, sewer, water, paving and the like, before the ground freezes
this fall. So if you could, we'd certainly appreciate whatever you can do
to expedite the change in zoning on this property.
Lehman: Well, typically we would do first consideration tonight, expedite at the
next meeting, and do second and third. Would that be...?
Holland: That's satisfactory.
Lehman: Okay.
Holland: And if there's any questions we have to answer other than that, I just ask
that you approve this.
O'Donnell: Joe, this downzoned from twenty-four to ten, is that correct?
Holland: That's correct.
O'Donnell: Okay.
Lehman: Anyone else from the public?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5c Page 23
Goodheart: My name is Mark Goodheart, and I'm a resident of Irving Avenue, which
actually is adjacent to this property that we're discussing. Sitting here
tonight, I think it's probably a surprise to have a citizen to come in and
oppose a downzoning within Iowa City. Having lived here a number of
years, I've seen Iowa City grow. I've seen residential dwellings go up.
High-density, medium density - you name it everything that way. On
behalf of both myself and I think the immediate neighbors that are affected
by this down-zoning, more than anything I would like to raise some
awareness about this property. The downzoningitselfis certainly not
something we're opposed to. We appreciate that opportunity to downsize
it from twenty-four units to ten units potentially, but in the real life picture
in the bigger sense of things, considering the types of properties that are
adjacent to this property, the structure of this land as well, the history
shows that it is a remnant space. It's space that was left over as part of the
Walden development area. Our preference would be either to leave it as
an open green space as it is now, or zone it down to an RS-8 zoning area,
which is really what the majority of the properties to the direct south of
this are. A lot of the properties to the west of this are zoned that as well,
and within that, we would also like to recommend that these units be
considered to be single-family detached units, as opposed to zero-lot,
medium density dwellings. It's something that the history of this,
Southgate has attempted to propose a plan for this property. Five years
ago or so there was a plan that was submitted to the Planning and Zoning
Commission to try to put in somewhere between sixteen and eighteen
units. There were a number of problems at that time, problems with the
flood plain; problems with drainage areas, these types of things; the water
retention area. In part of this rezoning, which doesn't maybe come out as
directly in the statement itself, the rezoning statement, part of the affect of
this is an approval for the development of these ten dwellings and of these
plans, and as a citizen it's really the development of those dwellings
themselves that both myself and I feel that the neighbors in the area are
opposed to. We appreciate certainly the Planning and Zoning
Commission treating this as a downzoning. It's nice to see that
opportunity in Iowa City. I don't feel that it happens very often. You
know, at the same time I don't feel like we want to sit here and waste
everyone's time, you know your time, our time, Glenn's time, Southgate's
time, trying to claim rare, exotic animals; rare exotic prairie grasslands;
we don't feel that that's effective for anyone. You look at the plan itself
that's submitted, you know, it's an Iowa City zero-lot line plan. You can
see hundreds if not more of these anywhere in Iowa City. The buildings
themselves are fine. You see them all over the place, so in our situation,
in some respect we feel that we're sort of in a no-win situation. If we ask
you to deny this then certainly that leaves the opportunity there for
Southgate to develop high-density dwellings, which would in our situation
be worse than what we're being proposed. So more than anything I would
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5c Page 24
like to raise some awareness of that, and take that into consideration as
part of this rezoning effort, and I'll answer any questions if you have...
Lehman: That was very well said.
Goodheart: Thank you.
Lehman: Anyone else from the public? Public hearing is closed. Do we have a
motion?
2) Consider an Ordinance
O'Donnell: Move first consideration.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell; seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Champion: Well, I am going to support the downzoning because I'm a great believer
in kind of mixed style of houses and multiple dwelling houses, close to
single-family detached houses. I think it's healthy for the commtmity; I
think it's healthy for people who live there, and so I'm going to support it.
Elliott: I also will support, although I think, I really appreciate Mr.
Goodheart's...the way he addressed the Council and the reality with
which he spoke I thought was commendable, and I understand the
concerns, but I think this is a very reasonable compromise and I'll be
supporting it.
Lelunan: I would just like to commend Southgate. I think they are a sensitive
developer and obviously could have done something that was far less
acceptable, and I too will support it. Roll call. Motion cartes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5d Page 25
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS
d. VACATING THE NORTHERN CUL-DE-SAC RIGHT-OF-WAY
OF JENSEN STREET (VAC04-00002)
1) Public Hearing
Lehman: Public hearing is open.
Goodheart: I guess I would just like to speak just for some clarification on Item D, for
your own benefits. Currently at the end of Jensen Street it is zoned, or it is
planned I guess to have a cul-de-sac there, as part of the rezoning in Item
C, that cul-de-sac would need to be removed, which would make way for
Item C. So, if nothing else, just out of clarity, that's what Item D is asking
for.
Lehman: Right. Anyone else wish to speak? Public hearing is closed.
2) Consider an Ordinance
Lehman: Roll call. Oops, moved by Wilburn; seconded by Vanderhoef. I didn't
think we were quite that far along. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5e Page 26
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS
e. REZONING AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY
AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING
OVERLAY MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (OPDH-20) PRELIMINARY OPDH PLAN FOR
OAKNOLL LOCATED NORTH OF BENTON STREET AND
EAST OF GEORGE STREET (REZ04-00015)
1) Public Hearing
Lehman: Public hearing is open.
Krumm: I am Tim Krumm and I'm an attorney with Meardon, Sueppel and
Downer. We represent Oaknoll Retirement Residence, or by its other
name, Christian Retirement Services. I'm here to speak on behalf of this,
and I'm going to operate under the assumption that the Council is
obviously very familiar with Oaknoll, and probably very familiar with this
project. This project has the support of P&Z, or this rezoning has the
support of Planning and Zoning unanimously, and also the support of
staff. It's also not new to Council, two years ago a very similar proposal
was approved by the City. Them are some changes that require new City
approval and that's why we're here, and the changes primarily are that the
project's a bit larger. Before it was forty-three units and now it's fifty-
two. There's additional underground parking; some other things have
been reconfigured. However, the footprint of the addition itself is actually
not any larger. There has been concern with this project about an
appropriate transition from lower to higher density areas. The exterior
appearance of the building is very similar to what the Council saw two
years ago. This is really the first two agenda items that relate to this
project. The second being the issuance of bonds to help finance the
project, and we'll talk about that later. Just want the Council to know that
Pat Heiden, the Executive Director of Oaknoll is here and prepared to
answer questions, as is Mark Anderson, who is the project architect, and
with that I think I'll entertain any questions the Council may have for any
of us.
Lehman: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak at the hearing? Hearing is closed.
2) Consider an Ordinance
Wilbum: Move first consideration of the ordinance.
Vanderhoefi Second.
Lehman: Moved by Wilbum; seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Let me just
say, because I can talk about it this time, Oaknoll is such a tremendous
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5e Page 27
asset to this community and an addition like this onto such a tremendous
facility I think is just, really speaks volumes for this community. I'm
proud to support it.
O'Donnell: And they're a great neighbor for any place.
Lehman: Absolutely, except those 2:00 in the morning parties. (laughter) Roll call.
Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5f Page 28
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS
f. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 75.25 ACRES FROM
INTERIM DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY (ID-RS) ZONE
TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY/LOW DENSITY SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SAO/RS-5) ZONE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTH OF FOSTER ROAD (REZ04-00013)
1) Public Hearing
Lehman: Public hearing is open.
High: Good evening, Your Honor, Council. My name is Darryl High. I'm with
Regency Homes and the applicant of this rezoning, and I'm just here,
myself and Jim Angstman tonight, to answer any questions that the
Council or yourself might have.
Lehman: Questions? Thank you for being here.
O'Donnell: Thank you.
Lehman: Would anyone else wish to speak to this? Public heating is closed. Do we
have a motion?
2) Consider an Ordinance
O'Donnell: Move first consideration.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell; seconded by Champion. Discussion? Roll call.
Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5g Page 29
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS
g. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.2 ACRES FROM
COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO-l) ZONE TO COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL (CC-2) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1901 BROADWAY STREET (REZ04-00016)
1) Public Hearing
Lehman: Public hearing is open.
Hayek: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is John
Hayek. I represent Abraham Enterprises, the applicant for this rezoning
request. Craig Abraham, one of the members of that entity, is here with
me. This is a request to rezone property to allow my clients to have
broader range of leasing opportunities for an already existing building at
1901 Broadway. There are apartments on the second floor of that
building, which are permitted by the present zoning. There are
commemial spaces on the first floor. The current zoning for a CO-1
permits some but not very extensive commercial uses on the first floor.
We'd like to be able to, my client would like to be able to have a broader
range of tenants that could consider that space. Many of the people that
have been interested in that space have been, when they found out they
would either not be permitted to make use of the space or they would have
to go through the special exception process, have gone elsewhere. We
want to be able to lease this space. We think it's a good use for this area.
It has necessary commercial uses in this area. Planning and Zoning voted
unanimously in favor of it. Staff supports it. We hope you will support it,
and I would like to ask, as my letter to you indicated earlier, expedited
consideration because the building is completed. We either have, or
expect to have, a certificate of occupancy very soon, and we'd obviously
like to get some rent coming in. So, we appreciate your expediting the
situation. Thank you very much.
Lehman: Thank you, John. Anyone else wish to speak to this? Public hearing is
closed. Do we have a motion?
Karr: Can we have a motion to accept correspondence?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Wilburn: Second.
Lehman: Motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed?
Motion carries.
2) Consider an Ordinance
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5g Page 30
Champion: Move first consideration.
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion; seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Wilbum: Thanks for investing in the south side.
O'Donnell: I think this is really a good thing to happen down there, and staff's
approved it; Planning and Zoning approved it. I think it's a good mix.
Lehman: Roll call.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#5i Page 31
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS
i. CONSIDERA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF "EAST SIDE GROUND
WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR" (SUB04-00016)
Wilbum: Move adoption of the resolution.
Elliott: I need to recluse myself on this.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Wilbum; seconded by O'Dormell. Discussion? Roll call.
Motion cames 6 to 1; Elliott abstaining.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#6 Page 32
ITEM 6 AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT
TO EXCEED $7,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
A SENIOR HOUSING FACILITIES REVENUE BONDS OF THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
LENDING THE PROCEEDS THEREOF TO THE BORROWER;
THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A LOAN AGREEMENT
AMONG THE CITY, THE BORROWER AND THE SERVICER
PROVIDING FOR THE REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN OF THE
PROCEEDS OF SAID BONDS AND THE SECURING OF SAID
REPAYMENT OBLIGATION; THE SALE OF SAID BONDS;
THE EXECUTIVE OF A PLEDGE, SERVICING AND PARTICI-
PATION AGREEMENT; AND THE EXECUTION OF OTHER
DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO.
1) Public Hearing
Lehman: Public hearing is open.
Krumm: Just real quickly, we appreciate the Council's previous support tonight,
and support for this project. I want to make sure that any questions the
Council has about this bonding request are addressed, or at least I'll do my
best to do that. One thing I'd like to point out about this is that unlike
most bonding projects like this, which are limited to (can't hear) entities,
this one actually I think expands the tax base of Iowa City because the
portion of Oaknoll that's being expanded is actually subject to real estate,
the collection of real estate tax, unlike most of the projects that you've
probably had an opportunity to use this authority for in the past. So,
we've made these types of request many times to the city of University
Heights even though this project is in Iowa City. So, with that in mind, I
don't know if there are questions you have about what we're requesting,
but we do appreciate the support of the Council.
Lehman: Well, if you would just comment. We did this for ACT. As I understand
it, you're using the borrowing authority and power of the city to get a
significantly lower interest rate, but the City really is under no liability.
You are assessed based on your credit with the lender.
Krumm: That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And the City has the ability to
support bond issues of this type, up to $10,000,000 per year. This is a
$25,000,000 project. We are seeking authority from the city of University
Heights, which has the same statutory authority, this year and next year for
the vast majority, and they're in the process of approving that as well. So,
we don't need the full authority of the City of Iowa City if the Council,
you know, or anyone, is interested to know why we would seek the
support of University Heights instead of the City of Iowa City, sort of as a
first order, well that's because we presume there's a lot more demands on
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#6 Page33
this bonding authority from the City of Iowa City than University Heights
has. They typically don't have the same kind of demands on that
authority. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? Public hearing is closed. Do we
have a motion?
2) Consider a Resolution
Wilbum: Move adoption of the resolution.
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Wilbum; seconded by Bailey. Discussion? Roll call. Motion
carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#7 Page 34
ITEM 7 ASSESSING A $300.00 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST WHATEVA
WE CAN DELIVA, PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE SECTION
453A.22(2)
a) Conduct Hearing
Chappell: Andy Chappell from the County Attorney's office. As you just said, we're
here for another civil penalty for tobacco, providing tobacco to a minor. I
will explain a little more about this one, it's a little different business
about how this one came about, and we do actually have the owner, Mr.
McGuire, of the business here to speak as well. The violation in question
here oceurred May 24, 2004, and it's my understanding that what they did
for the compliance check was they had the juvenile call the business, ask
for I believe a carton of cigarettes, and then gave them an address to
deliver them to. About a half hour later the delivery person came,
delivered the carton of cigarettes, accepted the money from the juvenile,
and I don't think even asked for I.D. At that point, the officer cited the
delivery person. Later on the delivery person did go ahead and plead
guilty, and paid the fine. Based on that we believe there's been a violation
of the statute 453A.2(1), which requires a civil penalty, under 453A.22(2).
I do have for the City Attorney a certified copy of that conviction. That is
all I have at this point. As I said, Mr. McGuire, the owner of the business,
is here to speak and I...it's my understanding that he's going to, among
other things, explain his side of what happened, and also I think ask for a
continuance of this hearing and the consideration of the resolution.
Lehman: Can I ask you a question? A person called and purchased the cigarettes
over the phone?
Chappell: My information is, I believe the way the business works is you call and
order things, and then they deliver them, at which point you pay for them.
Lehman: In other words, the person called a delivery service and bought the
cigarettes. They didn't call the seller of the cigarettes.
Chappell: Correct. But the delivery service, in order to do this, has a regional
cigarette permit issued from the City Council.
Lehman: All right, okay. Thanks. That's fine.
Chappell: Sorry, that'd be a whole different issue.
McGuire: My name is Edgar McGuire and I'm the President of Whateva We Can
Deliva, and I'm sorry to be here. I wish ! was here under different
circumstances, but it's a very awkward case. We do have a very different
business. We try and help out more than cause trouble. I'd like to say
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#7 Page 35
we've helped out quite a bit of people. We have a lot of people say
"you've saved me from a D.U.I." you know, that's one of the things we
want to do is help out the City, with the college students who don't have
meals on Sundays and people who live in Mayflower and can't get to
convenient places to eat. Also, you know, drinking and driving in general
it's just abad thing going on in Iowa City, so we try to reduce that by
bringing the items to them, instead of having them go on the streets. We
provide alcohol. We are an agent for all the liquor stores in Iowa City and
Coralville. This is a very weird situation that happened. I don't know if
you're interested in hearing everything because I do want to continue this.
I made a mistake of thinking that if you pay the ticket, it didn't mean that
you were guilty, it just meant kind of like a "no contest". The reason why
we went ahead and paid the ticket is just because it was cheap. We are
very young - my brother is 19 and he's also part owner. We work very
hard, 8am to midnight every day, seven days a week, and we had some
other more focus ..... we put our focus and attention to more things. When
I first started this I wanted to look into getting the permits and everything,
liquor permits and stufflike that. I talked to the City Clerk's office and
got some bad information about alcohol sales. I found out that I was
bootlegging for the first couple of weeks that I was open, and that
frustrated me very much to have my City Clerk tell me some bad
information. I should say the City Clerk's office. Spent...Judy Seib
called me pretty much every week and wanted to know how we were
handling situations with liquor. Obviously I personally believe in, not to
take anything away from tobacco, but I think alcohol's more of a problem.
We don't want younger people drinking, and you know, we just put our
focus more on alcohol, and I do admit that. Everybody knows you don't
want to sell cigarettes to somebody that's under 18. That is something that
we do stress. Right now it's just me and my brother, so it's not too hard to
stress that. It was a very awkward situation. We got the order. He went
there. He did not find the right address, and he went around. The officer
came out with the girl and, didn't come out of the building, but the officer
came out to the girl inside the building. My brother drove around and saw
the numbers, so he pulled up and went back, and knocked on the door and
saw the officer was there. He was plain clothed. He saw him and he has a
thick mustache, he looks older. He started to go back and it looked like
she was rushing like "oh no, I need to leave". And my brother assumed
that it was either, you know, something's cooking or maybe there's a child
left attended, unattended, so he just kind of went along with it, which I
agree is not the right way of handling the situation, but she gave him the
money, and what I stress and I'm kind of, I don't know I'm really strict.
How I handle this business is how I want to be handled as a customer, as a
consumer, and I really personally don't like it when Pizza Hut guys come
over and they look at you and say how much are you gonna tip me, and
how much do you want back. The lady who called for the cigarettes
handed over like $40 and the carton was like $27 or something like that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#7 Page 36
She said, "Can I have some change?" And what I told Clark, and this is
how we do it, basically you don't give them part of the change back. You
give them everything back. And then you say the total is this. I still need
that money. I just think it's kind of tacky to say "how much do you want",
and "let me figure this out".
Lehman: Would you limit yourself to what happened?
McGuire: Hm?
Lehman: Would you tell us what happened? Because ~ve're talking about selling
cigarettes to minors.
McGuire: Right. Well, um, she basically said go ahead and keep the change and
slammed the door in his face before he could give any money back, before
he could give it all back. The transaction wasn't done, as far as I'm
concerned. She seemed to be very scared, according to Clark. There was
also, like I said, the police officer came out and I found out through Andy
Matthews at the City Attorney's office that it was the first or second time
for this officer doing a sting, so he came out, and I would assume you
would want to wait a little bit or something like that. And you know, we
get a lot of calls where we say okay, let's Ieam from this and say this is a
weird situation and we walk away saying this is weird, and this was one of
those, and he...this was our first month. And we had two weeks of talking
with the state about the alcohol, and then the next two weeks we got
caught with this. We're just very young, both of us, we're very young in
this business. This is our first business, and we, like I said, want to do
more good than harm, and I think we do by helping everybody else out,
not getting D.U.I.'s. I mean, I can't stress how many people say thank
you, I can get cigarettes and alcohol delivered to me and now I'm not
driving drunk. So again, we want to provide a good service and not bad,
and I do, it's just a really gray shade to me. And like I said, I told Clark to
pay the ticket. I just wanted to get it over and done with. I have bigger
fish to fry, and so I just assumed it would be like a no contest, so I would
like to withdraw my plea, and I'm going to the Clerk's office at the
courthouse tomorrow and do that. Yeah, I can't...it will be, like I said, we
started this off with our tax income money and a fine like this would be a
substantial amount for us, which I know sounds sad, but we'll work on
that, and I guess that's all I can really say.
Wilburn: So are you saying you're asking for a continuance because you're going to
try some type of appeal? Is that what you're saying?
McGuire: Right, right. And I don't know...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#7 Page 37
Wilburn: I guess I have to ask Eleanor, is that relevant to what we are to do because
it says they shall be subject to a civil penalty.
Dilkes: The civil penalty, as we've talked about before, is pretty much automatic
upon the criminal conviction. There has been a criminal conviction. I
think what the gentleman is asking is he wants some time to see if he can
do something to have that criminal conviction set aside. I don't do a lot of
that kind of stuff, but I don't think it's as simple as going into the Clerk's
office and saying you want to take back your plea. But, I think the things
the Council needs to think about is I think often people who plead guilty
even if their intention is to plead guilty, the employee does so without
knowing necessarily that a civil penalty will follow. So I think that if you
do continue it, you need to think about whether you're going to be willing
to do that in the future as well.
Elliott: We can continue it if we so desire?
Dilkes: Yes, we have a 60-day period where if we don't dispose of it then it
becomes a state matter. We have checked with, I believe, the Attorney
General's office and they will allow us to keep the case pending the
continuance, but I think the main thing the Council just has to consider is
the ramifications for future actions, because I don't think it's going to be
uncommon. I don't think it will be uncommon that someone will say
"when I pled guilty to the criminal charge, I did not know that my
business would incur a civil penalty".
Elliott: Do we have the authority to consider any of the situation as was reported
to us tonight, as part of our determination?
Dilkes: My opinion is no, that the arguments the gentleman is making should have
been to the magistrates.
McGuire: I would also like to say we didn't even go to the courthouse and see a
judge. We just sent in the payment. Like I said, I thought it was a no
contest, apparently a bad error. IfI did want to fight it, and I did tell my
brother Clark, it would take time and you know I don't know, what I also
thought too was that if you fought in, they're going to charge you more.
You know, I had a car accident last year and I tried to fight it and then I
got more fines. And I said if I'd known that, I'd have said let's just pay
the ticket. So that's what I thought this was going to be like is that if you
try to fight in and they call in witnesses, you're going to get charged more
and maybe it'd be cheaper to pay the civil than to go through the whole
process of just the criminal case. So, I mean, again, bad judgment. I don't
have any counsel for my legal matters. It's just me and my brother. So
it's really hard and I don't know, again, I don't know ifI can withdraw my
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#7 Page 38
plead. I don't know ifI can submit some paper work that says you know
"please let us try this again", and I would fight it in the criminal case.
Lehman: But your brother did sell the cigarettes and take the money for them. Is
that what you told us earlier?
McGuire: No, like I said, I think it's a really gray shade. He took the money but he
was going to give full change back. He got...
Lehman: What does giving change back have to do with selling cigarettes?
McGuire: Because I don't think if you gave $40 back, you never got any money.
You never did a sale.
O'Donnell: Did she get the cigarettes?
McGuire: She did get the cigarettes, but slammed the door in his face and said keep
the change, and slammed it in his face. It's also a...
O'Donnell: You know, many times we have a convenient store or gas station where
the owner goes home and the employees sell cigarettes, and the bottom
line is you sold cigarettes to a minor. I'm not in favor of....
Wilbum: Excuse me, just one more request for Eleanor. And these are, you know,
for future situations. If someone is assessed a civil penalty and they
pursue through the courts and they were successful in getting the
conviction overturned (TAPE ENDS) a refund of the penalty from the
City, where they need to pursue...
Dilkes: I don't think necessarily, no; I think the penalty would be....I don't know.
I haven't looked at that issue, but I don't think it would be a given.
O'Donnell: Whether or not we delay this, he can still appeal, can't he?
Dilkes: You mean the criminal charge? He can pursue what he wants to do with
the criminal charge regardless of what you do tonight.
Elliott: But Ross' question had to do with if we find for the $300 tonight, that's it,
whether he is successful with any...one more...
Dilkes: I don't know. My answer was I don't know the answer to that.
Elliott: What kind of precedence do we set if it were decided to continue this? Is
there any kind of a perhaps dangerous...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#7 Page 39
Dilkes: That was the comment I was making earlier is that I think what you need
to think about is what you're going to do the next time the owner of a
convenience store comes up and says you know I talked to my employee
about that. I told my employee go ahead and plead guilty and I'll pay the
criminal charge, but I didn't know then that there was going to be a civil
penalty. I don't think that's necessarily an uncommon situation so I think
you do need to think about how you're going to handle this.
McGuire: It is very different from a convenience store; nothing like it. Because first
of all when we go there, like I said, we're giving the change back. If you
went to a convenience store guy and said, "Hey, I want a pack of Camel
Lights" and they cost you $3.15 and you gave him a $5 bill and he gave
you five ones back, what does that mean? Was there a sale?
Lehman: It means the clerk wasn't very bright.
McGuire: Well, no, that's because the convenience store business doesn't tip. If you
tipped your convenience store, would you want him going "how much you
going to tip me?" I don't know. I guess I get it a lot with pizza guys, and
they come in and I give them a $20 and they just look at you,
saying... (several talking at once)
Wilbum: I think, kind of following from what Mike was saying, this is still start of
the responsibility of having a permit, both liquor and...there's
consequences for that, so it's a responsibility if you have the permit to sell
the cigarettes, but I would like to, I would be kind of curious if the
Council, that other question about...I'm willing to, I think we should go
ahead with assessing this, but I would be curious about that. If people
were somehow able to get the criminal part removed...
Dilkes: Marian has reminded me that the resolution provides, and I suspect this is
pursuant to the laws, that they have twenty days to pay the civil penalties,
before there will be a suspension of the permit, so, there is some time
there.
McGuire: Is there any more time that I can get because I don't have $300?
Lehman: I'm sure that's state code. Are there any further questions before we close
the hearing?
Chappell: If I can just add, and I'd have to look it up, but my recollection is the
twenty days is not a state-mandated number. As the drafter of the
resolution, I just wanted to be clear. I think that's the number I came up
with to give the permittee time to receive the resolution because they often
don't show up, and we have time to get it out and give them sufficient
time to respond. The state code doesn't dictate what amount of time they
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#7 Page 40
get. All the state code dictates, that if they don't pay it they get the
fourteen-day permit suspension on top of the penalty.
Dilkes: So you're suggesting that the Council could give him more time if they
chose to?
Chappell: That would be my position, if that's what the Council would want to do.
Lehman: We could make that part of the resolution. Could we not?
Vanderhoef: Amend the resolution.
Dilkes: ...we could amend the resolution.
Lehman: Are there any other questions for these folks before we close the hearing?
McGuire: One more thing, one last thing, is that I really feel like this sting was done
really improperly. Even the chief of police says that. You know, I think
it's a really bad catch-22 here. I hope nobody else gets kind of, I don't
know what you want to call it, entrapment or anything like that. Like I
said, I think it was horribly done and I'm sure I need to speak more with
the magistrate's office about that, but I'm just really disappointed in the
City's handling of a lot of things, you know like the City Clerk giving me
bad information. I could have gotten into a lot of trouble.
Lehman: All we are talking about is the cigarettes, okay? That's (can't hear).
Dilkes: The City Clerk's office did not give this gentleman bad information.
Lehman: We're not going to get into that. Anyway, thank you. Public hearing is
closed. Do we have a resolution? If we chose to extend the time period,
would it be part of the resolution?
b) Consider a Resolution
Vanderhoef: I would be willing to give sixty days.
Lehman: Do we have a motion to assess the $300 penalty?
Dilkes: Get the resolution on the floor and then we can amend it.
Lehman: All right, we have a motion to assess the penalty by 7¢anderhoef?
Vanderhoef: Yes.
O'Donnell: Second.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#7 Page 41
Lehman: Second by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Vanderhoef: I would move that we amend the resolution to give the person sixty days
to pay the civil penalty.
Lehman: Is there a second to the amendment?
Elliott: Second.
Lehman: Motion by Vanderhoef; seconded by Elliott, amended to allow sixty days
for payment. Discussion of the amendment?
Champion: Is there, is part of that amendment that if he somehow is able to get the
criminal charge withdrawn that he would not have to pay the fine?
Lehman: Probably not.
Champion: Okay.
Lehman: Okay? All in favor of the amendment say "aye". All opposed? The vote
is 6 to 1 with Wilbum voting in the negative. Now we'll consider the
resolution as amended. Is this just a voice vote? Roll call.
Elliott: I have concerns about the process that, as communicated to us, but
obviously we're told that's not something we can consider but...
Dilkes: Well, I think you also need to consider that this is one gentleman's
presentation of the process, and if you want to get into talking about what
the Clerk's office said, what the police chief said, what my office said, we
can certainly do that, but I'd ask that you not take those representations as
true.
Lehman: Well, it was clear that they delivered a carton of cigarettes.
O'Donnell: That's the bottom line.
Lehman: Right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#1 ! Page 42
ITEM 11 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED
MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC," CHAPTER 8 ENTITLED,
"BICYCLES," SECTION 6, ENTITLED "PARKING
VIOLATIONS," SUBSECTION B, ENTITLED "OWNER PRIMA
FACIE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS" TO
ALLOW THE CITY TO DONATE ABANDONED BICYCLES TO
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Champion: Move first consideration.
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion; seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Wilbum: Good job with the Latin there, Emie.
Lehman: Pardon?
Wilbum: Good job with the Latin.
Lehman: Oh. (laughter)
Vanderhoef: Uh, this just allows us the opportunity to give some bicycles away. It does
not necessarily take away the ability for us to also have some of the
bicycles auctioned.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#14 Page 43
ITEM 14 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TO SUBMIT TO THE
VOTERS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER MANAGEMENT AND
CONTROL OF THE IOWA CITY AIRPORT SHOULD REMAIN
IN THE AIRPORT COMMISSION
Wilbum: Move adoption of the resolution.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Wilbum; seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Mascari: Hello everybody, my name is Rick Mascari, and I was on the Airport
Commission for nearly ten years. Three of which I was chair, and I
thought I'd go ahead and go over a little bit of history of what happened,
and what's going on with our Airport Commission, or what has happened
to the Airport Commission. In the 60's when aviation was at its peek, our
FBO which was the Iowa City Flying Service at the time, negotiated with
the Airport Commission to build three t-hangar buildings on the north side
of the airport. Iowa City Flying Service guaranteed the rent payments of
these buildings. They guaranteed the rent for all three of these buildings.
When Iowa City Flying Service defaulted in the year 2001, the rent
payments from the tenants of the Iowa City Flying Service for the three
buildings, was $3,000 a month. Half of which was directed at the Airport
Commission. Now when they defaulted, the whole entire $3,000 went
directly to the Airport Commission. Iowa City Flying Service then was
sold to a company called PSAir in the late 90's, giving the Airport
Commission and the general aviation community a breath of fresh air.
Similar to the earlier arrangement, the Iowa City Flying Service had
negotiated with the Airport Commission to build a large maintenance
facility on the south side of the airport. They guaranteed the rent
payments for the next twenty years, and the payments were structured so
that the building would be paid for at the end of their lease, and the
$700,000 building required a monthly payment of about $5,400 in order to
cash flow. This proposition was presented to the City Council and was
approved. Iowa City Flying Service also leased some other buildings at
the airport and their total lease payments to the airport were $5,400 for the
maintenance facility, $1,500 a month for the north t-hangar buildings,
which became $3,000 once they defaulted; $800 a month for the old shop;
$800 a month for the terminal building; and another $826 per month for
the remaining buildings. So the total rent collected from the flying service
amount to $9,326 per month. After only two years, after the sale to PSAir,
Iowa City Flying Service defaulted on their lease, leaving the Airport
Commission with some very nice, but empty buildings to rent, and a
shortfall of about $6,000 a month. So the Airport Commission did an
outstanding job though by being able to find an interim provider of basic
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#14 Page 44
services in only one week. Now, this all happens in February of 2001, and
due to the events of September 11, 2001, we had a tough time finding a
permanent FBO to take Iowa City Flying Service's place. Most of the
candidates that have shown an interest abandoned the interest after 9/11
happened, were quite apprehensive to say the least about the future of
aviation after 9/11. Aviation took it right on the chin. We were fortunate
to find a high quality FBO despite the circumstances. However, the rent
payments were not what they were when Iowa City Flying Service was
there. The Airport Commission again did an outstanding job of
negotiating the...to receive the amount of rent that was agreed upon only
two months after 9/11. Consequently, the rent was structured so that it
would ramp up and when that happened, the shortage was about $2,300,
excuse me, it went from $2,376 or $4,376. In other words, when it first
ramped up the shortage was $4,376 per month, and then it went down to
$2,376 per month. Let's see here ..... as was agreed upon by the City
Manager, the expenses of the airport really haven't gone up at all. It was
the reduction in the income. In fact, our expenses have declined through
our own cost-cutting efforts. However, the costs to maintain the high
quality facility that we all have will be higher by the above amount due to
the departure of the largest tenant, and the events of September 11th. Now,
in 2005, Building J, one of the hangar buildings, will be paid for which
will reduce the operating budget by $23,349. In three years another T-
hangar will be paid for. Again, reducing that amount by approximately
the same amount. The airport budget is less than 1% of the total City's
annual budget. The Department of Transportation of Iowa has given
grants, and federal grants, have given over $5.5 million to the City,
through the airport. I'd like for you just to consider all these facts, some
things that some of you recent freshman members don't know about, and
if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them for you. Thank
you.
Lehman: Thank you, Rick.
Clay: Good evening. My name is Dan Clay and I'm a current Airport
Commission member. And I'm here to speak on behalf of the Airport
Commission. And I thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight.
I know either Randy Hartwig who is the current Commission Chair or
myself has met individually with all of you, wit the exception of Mr.
Wilburn. We haven't had the opportunity to meet with you yet. It's been
a long night for you all so I'm going to keep this short, and don't feel a
need to reiterate everything that we discussed in our individual meetings,
but I think there's a couple of key points that are important to consider
here. The first is, there's a long history with airport commissions and with
city councils. It's easy to look back and discuss all of the things that could
have been, or were done, or weren't done. The bottom line is now we
have a new Council and a new Commission, who I think are working
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#14 Page 45
together in a way that has probably not happened in the past, at least my
impression. So I get a sense that the new Commission members and the
commitment we have to making that airport serve the City of Iowa City, in
the best way possible, in a manner that's fiscally responsible, is
demonstrated by our already important actions that we have taken, in
terms of reducing the budget, meeting individually with Council members,
getting on the same page, so we have a new Commission and a new
Council. The second point I want to make is that it's pretty clear from
those individual meetings that we're all on the same page. We want the
same goals. We may differ in some ways about how we think it's best to
get there, but I feel confident that the current Commission is working very
hard to reach the goals the Council has for the airport, the City Manger has
for the airport, and clearly that the Commission has for the airport. I think
it's important to note that. We are committed to a strong working
relationship with the City Council, and with the City Manager's office. I
think we've started to demonstrate that. It's clear that we're going to keep
moving that direction, and we think that's the best for the airport. The
ABS report said they believe that improved communication was critical,
and I think it just makes good business sense for us to have a better
working relationship, a stronger working relationship, between the
Commission and the City Council. That's where we're moving. I think
it's also important to note that the cost-cutting measures that we took
recently are in the context of a larger process that we discussed. We are
currently developing a strategic plan that you are aware of. A week from
tonight we have our first focus group meeting. One week after than we
have our second focus group meeting. One of the groups is going to focus
on the constituency of the airport and people who use the airport,
including University personnel. The second meeting is focusing on
getting input from business leaders in our community, people who are key
players in the economic development of the community, so that we can
learn from them, build relationships with them, and begin to plan together
what we can do in the next five, ten, fifteen years to create a situation
where the airport is optimally serving the economic development of the
community, and doing so in a fiscally responsible manner. I think that's
critical. I feel like we have very bright, strong, committed good business
leaders now on this Airport Commission, and we're all on the same page.
I don't know that that's happened in the past. But we're moving this
direction. I think we have good momentum, and I think it's probably clear
to you by now that we're going to make the changes that we need to make
in order to move the airport forward. Now, having said that, I think we're
all on the same page there. I think that's what everybody is hoping to
accomplish. If we put this thing on the ballot, it's going to be a very
divisive discussion. I think that there are people in the community who
are going to come out strongly in favor of this. I think the recent stuff in
the ad sheet is an indication that them are people that are very passionate
about this airport, and are going to be very vocal about their beliefs of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#14 Page 46
what is best for the airport. I think that's good. I also think there are
people, perhaps, who feel differently about economic development in this
community, who feel differently about what they think the airport should
be or shouldn't be, and those people are going to come out in force too.
And they're going to be very vocal. And I'm afraid it's going to get very
divisive and it won't be positive. The discussion we have about the airport
is going to be negative, and I don't understand how that can benefit the
City or the airport, or the Council, or the Commission, to have the airport
be a divisive issue. IfI thought it was the only way to get to the goals that
we all have for the airport, then I would be in favor of it because frankly if
that's what's necessary to move the airport forward, then I think we ought
to go that way. I don't think it is. I think it's a clear message that the
unanimous vote of our Commission is that it is not. We're all squarely on
the same page here. We all think we're moving the right direction. Now,
what we're asking for is not a blank check. We're not asking for ten,
fifteen years to accomplish something that we know is critical to start
doing right now. What we're asking from you is to give us a little bit of
time to complete the development of the strategic plan. Begin its
implementation, that's what we're asking for. Give us a chance to finish
up what we've already started. We have a lot of positive momentum
going here. What I'm asking for you, of you, is to delay placing this on
the ballot for a year. I'll come back to this podium a year from now. If
we're still in the same place, if we're still in the same place, I personally,
and I think it's safe to say the entire Commission, would be in favor of
changing the governing structure. But we don't believe that's the case.
We really don't. I think we've already made positive changes. I think
you'll see in the next couple of months there will be more positive
changes occurring. This Commission has the expertise and the courage to
do that. And the commitment to do it, and I think we've demonstrated to
this point that we're going to make that happen. My big concern is that if
this goes on the ballot, it's just going to do permanent damage to the
airport. I really believe that, and I think the Commission...well I know
the other Commissioners feel the same way. So, I'm asking you to delay
putting this on the ballot for a period of a year, at which point we can
reevaluate. Now I expect that with our working relationship to change,
that this is not a once a year evaluation process. I expect this to be a
continual cooperative process, where the Commission and the Council and
the City Manager cooperatively evaluate the direction we're going, the
changes we're making, the goals we're meeting, the objectives we're
setting, so that it's a mutually influential process as we move the airport
forward. That's what I'm asking. That's what the Commission is asking,
is to just give us a little time to finish the job that we've already started.
Are there any questions? Thank you. I appreciate it.
Zimmerman: I'm Greg Zimmerman. I've lived in Iowa City for twenty-seven years
now, and in those twenty-seven years I've fortunately and unfortunately
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#14 Page 47
had a lot of dealings with the City and city government, and the different
departments of the City, and I can say that my dealings with the Airport
Commission have all been positive and been easy. No, you know, you
don't have to call over here, we'll have to get back with you, that kind of
thing, and I don't know of any other department that's on it's way to self-
sufficiency. I've seen a lot of airport commissions come and go, and it
seems like this one really knows what they're doing and doing a good job,
and from what I can see, very soon will be very close to being self-
sufficient. I have yet to see a government agency that runs better than
what the commission-type of agency would run. You know, the less
levels of government, I think, would be better, as far as getting things done
and more expediently done. And for me, I would like to see my tax
dollars spent as judicially as possible, and I think this is the way to just
leave the things for this Commission do what they're going to do, at least
for a year like they said, because it seems like they're going to do a real
good job, and I think they deserve a chance. Thanks.
Lehman: Discussion?
Elliott: I'll start off. I have very mixed emotions on this. I will be voting no. I
would rather not put it on the ballot at this time as a referendum. I...the
mixed emotions come that I am not in favor of commissions being
autonomous, or semi-autonomous, and I think that eventually it should
come under the City as a department, as part ora department, but at this
time I am taking Professor Clay at his word, that if things are not taken
care of within the next year, that he would join with the Council in putting
it on the referendum and be for it. I guess that's it. I would, as a part of
that, I would want the Commission to come forward to the City Manager
and the Council with specific objectives on how they will handle the
marketing, the management, and the public relations for the airport if this
is delayed. I would like for that to come forward within one to two
months, and at the end of twelve months to sit down and measure how
successful they've been.
Wilburn: It's just my opinion that the long term stability of the airport could be
strengthened and tried under the auspices of the City, with the City
establishing under...there was a suggestion, a Department of
Transportation Services, and reconstituting a commission, an advisory
commission, under that department, just similar to the Parks and
Recreation department. There's been some folks that say well it's more
specialized than that. That's a judgment call. But I think that, and it
would be my hope, that the existing committee if it were to disperse to
succeed and be brought under the auspice of the City, that the current
Commission would reapply, and I would certainly plan on appointing
them as part of that commission. Difference of opinion, you know, no
hard feelings by me, whichever way this would go, concern about the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#14 Page 48
airport being displayed, portrayed in a negative light if this were on the
ballot, regardless if this were on the ballot, that's not going to go away.
There are existing opinions about the airport out in the community and
feelings about that on both ways, and I just see some further opportunities
with more greater support within a department of the City. Even in terms
of marketing, I see some greater potential that way.
O'Donnell: Well, I'll be voting no too. I agree with a lot of what Bob said. Professor
Clay has said he would like one year to come up with solutions. We've
spent $15,000 for a consultant to come in and advise us. I'd like to see
this group, this new group, be shown the same consideration the past
commissions have been shown. I think positive steps have been made.
They're talking about a strategic plan, and I would like to give them an
opportunity to see if they can't implement some of these ideas. So I will
be voting no.
Champion: I don't honestly feel that putting the airport under City management would
now allow them (can't hear). They can still have a strategic plan. I...it's
tough. We have a wonderful commission now, but we also have people in
this city quite capable of management, and there are tax dollars going to
the airport and I think the City ought to be responsible for it. They've
spent a lot of money.
Lehman: I really appreciated your comments. I mean, I think, and I don't think
there's ever been a time when the objectives of the Airport Commission so
parallel what the Council would like to see from the airport. And because
of that feeling right now between the Council and the Commission, I can't
imagine a better time for the Council and the Commission to organize the
governance of that airport while we have that sort of relationship, or at
least give the public the opportunity to do that. I think it's inherently
inappropriate for public assets to be governed by anybody other than folks
who are elected by the public. I have no doubt in my mind that the city
administration, should the public pass this referendum, I have no doubt
that the Commission still will largely be responsible for the operation of
the airport, but the City, who ultimately has the responsibility to the voters
for any asset of the City, will then be in the position of responsibility. I'm
going to support the motion, and it has no bearing, I really wish we had
the worst Commission we'd ever had in history. It'd make it really, really
easy to do this, but I believe that the long term best interest of that airport
will be best served if the Commission and the Council will be a team, but
the ultimate responsibility really has got to be with the City. Other
discussion?
Bailey: Welt, two months ago I was eager to see this resolution come forward. I
have had grave concerns about the airport. It has incredible economic
development potential and it's not being used, and it's not being marketed,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#14 Page 49
and we can all agree upon that. After very careful consideration however,
I will be voting no. I'm willing to give this commission a year, and I don't
view it as you're not asking for a blank check and you're certainly not
getting it, because I expect to be back here in a year with vast
improvements. I don't think it's a bad thing if the airport were a
department of the City. Apparently that's a concern. I'm willing to give
you a year to improve this situation, and look at this, so I'll be voting no
on this resolution.
Vanderhoef: That leaves me. Airport has been a real problem off and on for a number
of years. There have been times that I wished I could have grabbed the
commission right then and put it under City auspices. However,
governance, I think, can be done by citizen's groups. When I attend
national meetings and watch what is happening nationally, general
aviation airports are being managed both ways. They are under city
government and they are under commission. Some of our largest airports
that are far beyond what we will ever have in our city are still under a
commission - autonomous commission. So with the hard work of the
commissioners that we presently have, and hearing their commitment and
also their written commitment that are distributed by letter in our packet, I
too would like to keep it an independent commission if we can pull this
forward and be the great airport I think we can be. I think you can pull it
off. I want it to happen, and I will give you a year. I want an update in
say three months, another one in six months, and right on down the line,
and I want you to ask for help if you need help, along the way. Don't wait
til the end of the time and say "oh by the way". Understand what you're
doing. Grants that you apply for, know how much match there is. Can
you afford them? What are terribly important to the City, come and talk it
over with us. If it's an important grant that you're going to need support
on, I'm not saying you'll get it, but at least keep us in the loop so we know
what's happening, and what needs we have out there. So, I'll be voting no
on this.
Lehman: Roll call. The motion is defeated 4 to 3; Wilburn, Lehman, and Champion
voting the affirmative.
Champion: And I really do wish you the best of luck.
Lehman: Absolutely.
Champion: I'm a strong supporter of the airport.
Lehman: You still have seven very strong supporters up here, regardless of the vote.
That is unanimous.
Elliott: That's unanimous.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
//14 Page 50
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed?
Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#15 Page 51
ITEM 15 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO
ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR INSTALLING A NEW LIGItTING
SYSTEM ON MERCER PARK BASEBALL DIAMOND
Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution.
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Wilburn; seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
O'Donnell: Is this the diamond that Mr. Atkins hit his towering home run?
Atkins: No, it was right next door though, yeah. (laughter)
Vanderhoefi The one with the shorter field.
Lehman: If he'd had the lights more people could have seen it.
Atkins: You had to say that. (laughter) I paid for the dent on the roof....
Lehman: All right, roll cai1. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#17 Page 52
ITEM 17 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN ADDENDUM TO
THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
AGREEMENT FOR THE NORTH DODGE STREET PROJECT
STP-1-5(69)~2c-52
Lehman: Do we have a motion?
Vanderhoef: Move the resolution.
O'Dormell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Vanderhoefi I would like, I think we have the map available, you didn't bring them
tonight? That's okay. If you could just give us a quick summary, Ron.
Knoche: This project will be phased into three phases. The first phase will start at
Governor and go to Dubuque Road, and that is where the Hy-Vee is. This
project will also be occurring at the same time as the Foster-Dubuque
intersection project. The phasing of the north Dodge Street project will be
such that the impact at the interchange of Highway 1, north Dodge Street,
and Interstate 80 will be minimal and will allow for the traffic to come in
to Scott Boulevard. Also the corridor rule will remain open so vehicles
can come down Dodge Street and enter on Highway 1, completely into the
downtown. There will also be, as the phasing goes through, north Dodge
Street second and third phasing will occur, not in this construction season.
That will be next year, but in the following construction season most
likely. There will be some dirt work and utility work that happen outside
of the roadway, but as far as the impact to the traffic, it'll be minimal.
And that way with the Dubuque-Foster project will be over by the time we
get up and really start to affect the interchange at Interstate 80.
Vanderhoefi So start date is?
Knoche: Start date will be April 1st of next year.
Vanderhoefi Okay. And phase one stops short of Scott Boulevard.
Knoche: Phase one will be to Dubuque, or through the Dubuque Road intersection
and that first phase will be required to be open to traffic by the end of the
first construction season, which would be by November 15th of next year.
Vanderhoef: And then the following April which would be 06, will be phase two?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#17 Page 53
Knoche: Would be phase two and three. There may be work occurring in phase
two and three during the first construction season, but it will not affect the
traffic in those two phases. Phase two would take you from Dubuque
Road to Scott Boulevard, and phase three will be from Scott Boulevard to
Interstate 80.
Vanderhoef: And I believe we have some changes coming with the interchange on the
offramps?
Knoche: Yes, the, with this project, the east bound off ramp will be signalized, and
with that there are certain times of the year when the people that come off
the east bound ramp, do cue back into Interstate 80, to the through lanes of
Interstate 80, and to help alleviate that there will be both left and right turn
lanes that will be built, and also there will be a signal for that cuing to be
relieved, if it does get back that far.
Vanderhoefi So the safety issue is being addressed in all of this, but it will be in the
06/07 phase of the construction?
Knoche: That is where it could occur at. We're also currently looking to see if we
can do a temporary signal at that interchange also to get it a little bit
sooner. So it could happen as soon as the first phase of the project.
Vanderhoef: Thank you. I would appreciate to have that happen as soon as possible.
Thanks.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#21 Page 54
ITEM 21 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION
Lehman: Bob?
Elliott: No.
Lehman: Connie?
Champion: No.
Lehman: Mike?
O'Donnell: No.
Lehman: Dee?
Vanderhoef: Just one thing. I would like to see if there is interest on the Council in
asking staff to put together a little more unified look at a plan and consider
how we might move forward in connecting the projects of the south sand
pit area and the trail project, up to the Sand Lake area, and in that
environment along the Ralston Creek.
Lehman: Dee, I think staff is very much involved in doing that now.
Vanderhoefi Well, a little expansion with the north one is the piece that I...the Sand
Lake area, also to tie all this together.
Atkins: I think it makes a lot of sense.
Lehman: You've been working on that one?
Atkins: We have pieces everywhere. But I understand.
Vanderhoef: Connect them and we'll plan how we're going to move forward with
something like this.
Wilbum: I was asked to announce that La Leche League International is again
sponsoring the annual breastfeeding week, which is August 1 st through 7th,
and wanted to point out that breastfeeding's immunilogical and nutritional
and health benefits for babies has long been documented, and benefits
extend well into adulthood. They provide breastfeeding information,
support to mothers in over sixty countries, and you can contact the local
chapter or you can look on their web site www.lalecheleague.org. Also
I'd like to say good luck to the young ladies ten and under and twelve and
under who will be trying out for the Slammer Softball Association this
Saturday and next Saturday at Napoleon Park at 2:00 pm, and want to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.
#21 Page 55
thank, on behalf of the Crisis Center, the businesses and community
members who helped out with the Thanksgiving in July and other
successful campaigns, and welcome aboard Hy-Vee for their creative food
drive that brought in some extra food.
Bailey: I just want to express my appreciation for the downtown landscaping that
incorporates roses. I mean, it really looks good this time of year and it
smells great, and I think it makes our downtown look terrific. It's a great
landscaping idea.
Wilbum: Thumbs up to roses.
Lehman: Okay, just one item, Regenia, the event that was planned for you last
week, for your retirement, was absolutely a real tribute to you. It was a
lovely event and I very much enjoyed being there along with some of the
other Council folks. Steve?
Atkins: Nothing sir.
Lehman: Eleanor? Marian? Just a minute. Oh yes, we lost a really, really good
Iowa Citian this last week, Dick Lee. Thankfully we were able to
recognize him while he was able to come here, receive the recognition. A
real pillar of the police department and the community, and we'll all miss
him very, very much. We have a motion to adjourn?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Elliott: Second.
Lehman: All in favor? Meeting adjourned. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of August 3, 2004.