HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-13 TranscriptionSeptember 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 1 of 69
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session
Council:
Staff:
Visitors:
Tapes:
7:00 PM
Lehman, Champion, Kubby, Norton, O'Donnell, Thornberry, Vanderhoef
Atkins, Dilkes, Franklin, Karr, Schmadeke, Schoon,
Nicholas Grunzweig, Jr., Knutson Construction Services; Jay Honohan, Honohan, Epley,
Braddock & Brenneman; Gene Kroeger, owner/developer; Terry Smith, Mid-American
Energy
99-85 S2, 99-84 all
A complete transcription is available in the City Clerk's office.
Review Zoning Items 99-85 S2
Lehman: Okay, Karin. Planning and Zoning matters.
a. Consider a motion setting a public hearing for September 28 on an ordinance amending
Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, to allow banner signs in shopping centers.
Franklin: Okay, the first three items are setting public hearings for September 28th. The first
addresses banner signs in shopping centers. The second is provisions relating to home
occupations.
Kubby: Before we go too fast, about the banner thing.
Franklin: Yes?
Kubby: It sounds like banners could be there basically indefinitely.
Franklin: That's right. This is not for temporary banners. It's opening it up a little bit.
Kubby: I'm just having some initial negative reaction.
Franklin: Okay.
Vanderhoef: But they can't put up a banner that advertises a service within that store?
Franklin: That's right. It's the name of the center or the name of the store, but not "Coke 59¢" or
whatever.
Kubby: Or "Sale."
Franklin: Yeah.
Thornberry: And it doesn't even have the name of the store on it, is that correct? Like the ones out in
(can't hear).
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 2 of 69
Franklin: It could.
Thornberry: Those don't have ....
Lehman: But they could have.
Thornberry: Okay.
They could have, yeah.
Franklin:
Lehman:
Norton:
Kubby:
I can't recall how--I think it's worded that you can have it on every light pole. And I'm
concerned (can't hear).
You know, I didn't go back and look at this in detail 'cause we're just setting a public
hearing.
Yeah, I think this is the sort of thing we should have at the hearing.
(Can't hear). But we can study it beforehand, fight?
Okay, well I guess I want to put it out there for Council members to read and that, and I
have a concern initially that if you can have them on every light pole on the perimeter of
parking, that that is way too frequent and will be an eyesore and just be too much.
Thomberry: We'll probably hear that at the public heating.
Lehman: Okay.
Vanderhoef: It said in the parking lot, so my question was whether it was inside or at the perimeter.
Norton: Perimeter, I think.
Lehman: Well, those are things for the public hearing.
Norton: Yeah, but I think it's alerting us, because there's also (can't hear) of defining a shopping
center. I'm not sure that they're at all well defined (can't hear), and I've got to think
about it.
Franklin: Mm-hm, okay. Well, I'll make a note of those concerns, and then we can be sure to talk
about them before the public hearing.
b. Consider a motion setting a public hearing for September 28 on an ordinance amending
Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, to amend the provisions relating to home occupations.
Franklin: The second is amending provisions relating to home occupations, which has opened up
home occupations a little bit more to allow an employee.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
Franklin:
Kubby:
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 3 of 69
c. Consider a motion setting a public hearing for September 28 on an ordinance amending
Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, to allow public utilities in commercial and industrial zones.
Franklin: And then the third item is to make provisions for public utilities in commercial and
industrial zones. Our zoning ordinance does not address that now.
d. Consider an ordinance conditionally changing the zoning designation from Medium Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8), and
approving a preliminary Planned Development Housing Overlay plan for 24 townhouse-style
dwelling units for approximately 7.72 acres located at the northeast corner of Barrington Road
and Huntington Drive. (REZ99-0007)
Franklin: Item d is first consideration of Windsor Ridge, Part 13. This is the townhouse
development near the commercial center.
e. Consider an ordinance conditionally changing the zoning designation of approximately 7.46
acres from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing
Overlay (OPDH-8) and the approval of a preliminary OPDH Plan for 72 residential dwelling
units within the Windsor Ridge subdivision located at the east terminus of Court Street.
(REZ99-0006)
Franklin: Item e is second consideration of the seventeen residential units. That 's the 18 -plexes
off Court Street. That's Windsor Ridge, Part 12.
f. Consider an ordinance vacating an approximate 7,720 square-foot unimproved portion of
Virginia Drive located between Lots 2 and 14 of North Hills Subdivision immediately northeast
of the intersection of Virginia Drive and Ridgewood Lane. (VAC87-0001)
Franklin: Item f, the second consideration of vacation of a portion of Virginia Drive.
g. Consider an ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, by adding a definition of
"adult business" and changing separation requirements between adult businesses and other
uses.
Franklin: [Item] g is pass and adopt on adult businesses.
h. Consider an ordinance mending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, to allow off-street parking on a
separate lot in a different zone under certain conditions.
Franklin: [Item] h, pass and adopt on allowing off-street parking on a separate lot in a different
zone.
i. Consider a recommendation to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors on a request
submitted by Allan and Jennifer Berger for a conditional use permit to allow a veterinary clinic
as a home business at 3005 Highway 1 NE in Johnson County.
Franklin: Item i is a new item. This is a recommendation on a conditional-use permit. Basically,
the County zoning ordinance provides for cities to have an opportunity to look at
conditional uses when those conditional uses are within two miles of the city. This is for
a vetefinary clinic offof Highway 1 fight near Fox Lane in the Buckmayer Bend area.
Are all of you familiar with the location of this? Okay.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 4 of 69
Norton:
Champion:
Franklin:
O'Donnell:
Franklin:
O'Donnell:
Franklin:
Thornberry:
Norton:
O'Donnell:
Kubby:
On the way up that hill?
We discussed this another time.
Mm-hm, yes. This came before us before as a rezoning to commercial. That was
inconsistent with the fringe agreement, and there was also concems about the size of the
commercial development at that location on Highway 1. And so the applicant was
advised and, as far as I know, is satisfied with coming in as a home occupation. What
they want to do is start up this business so that at some time in the future, if it does grow
to a larger business, they would move to a commercial area. There are a number of
conditions that were suggested and were placed in the advice to the Board of Supervisors
in the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. And all of these
conditions are meant to address the size of this commercial enterprise on Highway 1,
because the concern is one of traffic and there being a direct access point to Highway 1
at this particular place, too, because this is where we're talking about the site distance
being somewhat of an issue for--if it were a higher traffic generator. And so these
conditions are to address that issue and to provide for a time period within which this
business would be reviewed and the conditional use permit would be extended, unless
the business had grown to such an extent that it became an issue.
There' s a couple of things, Karin, that I'm not comfortable with on your conditions.
One is we're going to allow for this guy to be in business for three years, and then we're
going to review it. So, realistically, in three years we could go and say, "You no longer
have a business."
Or you could say, if it has not changed, that you can continue. I mean that ....
But there's really not a lot of permanent (can't hear) .... We also have, my other
concern was you can't board an animal overnight.
Mm-hm.
Unless it's being treated.
Unless it's being treated. But not to make a boarding kennel.
But you have to look at this property itself. If you go out and buy the property, and you
can have 150 horses, cows, pigs or chickens on this ....
But that's not the point. Those cows and chickens don't create traffic by individuals
taking their cows and chickens to be boarded like the boarding kennel would create
traffic with one or two animals to drop them off for boarding and then to pick them up
for boarding. So it's a different--it's not that the land can't handle the animals; it's that
the configuration of development, we don't think it's appropriate--I don't think it's
appropriate--for that kind of traffic associated with that ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 5 of 69
O'Donnell: Well, we don't know what kind of traffic this is going to generate, and if the guy has
horse tides out there, which you could do, then you're going to generate ....
Norton: I don't know how you could have horse tides (can't hear).
Franklin:
I think that would require a rezoning in the county to get into that kind of a commercial
recreational sort of....
O'Donnell: I think today we're trying to encourage small businesses, and I would like to make it as
easy as we could to have a business.
Norton: Within reason, that's all.
O'Donnell: Within reason--it's a vetetinary clinic. It's kind of no brainer to have it in county.
Norton: Yeah, but not have all that traffic ....
Franklin:
I think that the issue is not whether it's a vetetinarian or not; it's a matter of the
commercial enterptise. The one stipulation, one condition that I believe the applicant is
not totally comfortable with, is the one regarding the numbers of employees that they
would like to have ....
Thomberry: The father being out of town doing (can't hear).
Franklin:
No, it's not the father being out of town as much because the Planning and Zoning
Commission addressed that by saying, "There shall be no more than one nonresident on-
site employee." What they also wanted to have an opportunity for was part-time interns,
vetetinarian intems to come and practice at the clinic. And I think the discussion--and
Matilyn is here to correct me if I'm wrong--the discussion at Planning and Zoning was
around the ability to have a larger business if you had a number of intems there. I think
the applicant would like to have two nonresident employees ....
Thornberry: Was there difference between what P&Z brought forward and then some staff changes
also?
Franklin:
No. The Planning and Zoning Commission changed the staffs proposal as far as
conditions. There were a list of conditions that were presented to the ....
O'Donnell: Well, Planning and Zoning approved it as it is 6-1, is that tight?
[Murmurs of assent]
Norton: (Can't hear) there and a little bit additional (can't hear).
Franklin:
Yes, that's tight. The thing that Planning and Zoning changed was to insert the on site
for the employee ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 6 of 69
Thornberry: Number 5.
Franklin: And then providing for, specifically, the renewal. I mean, I've been giving it a more
positive tone in terms of that time limit, that the intention is that it could be renewed.
Norton: Karin, I was kind of curious. We have another item, you know, on home occupations--
earlier, it was mentioned. You had a what, limit of 25% of the total area of the dwelling
and accessory buildings, and here it's 30%. Obviously (can't hear). I just wondered
why that was different. Wasn't it 25% in that previous one, home occupations?
Franklin: I believe so, Dee.
Norton: And here it' s 3 0%. I just wondered why the inconsistency?
Franklin: I don't know, unless it was just to allow a little bit bigger in the county, but ....
Norton: Maybe that's the idea.
Vanderhoef: How big are the accessory buildings at this location? You know, above and beyond the
house?
Thornberry: Well, you don't even count the garage, as I understand.
Franklin: At this particular location? I don't know.
Norton: There's a picture there ....
Vanderhoef: They say--in the letter it alluded to they want to do this in the basement of the house.
And that they weren't ....
Franklin: Mm-hm. There 's a house and a garage and a bam. And you wouldn't be able to use
more than 30% of the dwelling unit and accessory buildings. So it really allows you a
bit of latitude there.
Vanderhoef: So it could be that you could use that whole basement, because of the percent on all the
buildings.
Franklin: Mm-hm. This definitely is more permissive than what we're suggesting for the home
occupations in the city. But I think ....
Norton: (Can't hear) difference.
Franklin: Yeah, I mean that has to do with the impact that it is going to have on surrounding
properties in the city, where that's more of a concern in terms of compatibility and your
neighbors and all of that. The issue here had to do almost exclusively with traffic,
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 7 of 69
whereas in the city we're looking at fitting in these home occupations in residential
areas, so it's really a different beast than in the county. 'Cause the city, in terms of
determining that 25%, the garage is excluded from that calculation.
Kubby: It seems to me, because the person who would be getting this permit is okay with all of
them except the number of nonresident on-site employees, that maybe that should be the
focus of our conversation (can't hear).
Thornberry: Two FTE's I would be comfortable with. As was the discussion at Planning and
Zoning...
Champion: Well, if you had somebody answer the phone ....
Thornberry: That's one.
Champion: And somebody helping with the animals.
Thornberry: That's two.
Champion: That's two.
Vanderhoef: And that doesn't allow for the veterinarian.
Thornberry: No, that' s somebody to help with the animals would be the ....
Kubby: They're residents.
Champion: They're there.
Thornberry: But I think one, just one person, I think that's pretty restrictive when you're talking
about a new start-up, incubator business. I mean, you know, you shouldn't program it to
fail by being overly restrictive.
Kubby: But it's a different (can't hear) because it's a home occupation, so the rules of our code
in the city are different from home occupations versus a start-up business in a
commercial ....
Thornberry: I know. We don't tell people in Iowa City how many employees they can have in a
start-up business in the city limits.
Norton: But on a home occupation ....
Kubby: Unless you're a home occupation.
Thornberry: Unless you're a home occupation.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 8 of 69
Norton:
The Board of Supervisors and the county land-use plan provide for reviewing this thing,
and if it wants to grow or has a tendency to grow, then they're going to have to move to
a commercial zone. I think their whole idea was to not have these things standing
around in independent little units, but to be more consolidated in commercial areas
(can't hear).
Franklin: Well, that's the--looking at the county land-use plan, yeah.
Lehman:
Let me ask you this: if the homeowner is on vacation, that means only one person can
work out there then?
Franklin: If the homeowner's on vacation, does the (can't hear)?
Lehman: The owner is on vacation or out of town for two weeks.
Franklin: The homeowner's on vacation ....
Lehman: They're only allowed one nonresident full-time employee?
Franklin: Yeah.
Lehman: There's only one. That's all that can be there?
Franklin: Mm-hm.
Champion: It's not just a full-time employee, is it?
Thomberry: One FTE, full-time equivalent.
Norton: I should think they would think that as a replacement body.
Lehman:
I don't know. But the nature of the business is such that I guess I can understand some
businesses where one might be adequate. In this sort of business, I have to think that one
might not be ....
Kubby:
Okay. But I don't think that, in terms of our decision, we should look at the individual
business, but look at the impact that that business will have on the surrounding areas. I
mean, for me, that' s what the task is. 'Cause we're looking at traffic (can't hear), and
the number of employees is a part of that formula, no matter what the business is.
Vanderhoef: However, the business is working with animals, and from the nursing perspective that I
have a background on, you need someone to assist you with certain procedures at times.
Thornberry: Or of training. If these are training ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 9 of 69
Vanderhoef: So having only one on site means that that person has to not only do the treatment but
also (can't hear).
Franklin: No, I think you're losing something here and that the people who live here are
veterinarians.
Vanderhoef: They are not counted?
Franklin: They are not counted, no.
Vanderhoef: So, you're saying one additional to the people?...
Norton: That live there.
Franklin: Right. 'Cause remember, the basic thing is this is a home occupation.
Vanderhoef: So there is that (can't hear).
Franklin: Yes.
Vanderhoef: Okay.
Norton: And they work on it, yeah.
Thornberry: If they go on vacation, they're not going to go on vacation separately.
Lehman: Well, we'll talk about it tomorrow night.
Champion: Well, if both vets are on vacation, I'm going to give up on my sick animals anyway,
SO ....
[Several talking at once]
Thomberry: There's going to be follow-up, just like there's follow-up of sick people. I just don't
want to, and it doesn't really make any difference to me, I just don't want to set a
business, or see a business set up overly restricted to the point where it cannot succeed.
Kubby: And maybe a commercial property is the more appropriate place for business to start up.
Norton: Yeah, that's what they're supposed to do.
O'Donnell: (Can't hear).
Franklin: Okay, you'll probably have some input tomorrow night?
Lehman: Yes, I'm sure this discussion will continue tomorrow night.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 10 of 69
Review Agenda Items 99-85 S2
Lehman: Okay. Review agenda items.
(AGENDA #6: PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF
COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE IOWA CITY LANDFILL RECYCLING PROJECT,
PHASE I, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID,
DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING
TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.)
Kubby: I'm looking at item number 6. I know that I asked this a meeting or two ago about the
recycling project, which includes the scale and the self-contained hazardous materials
storage building unit. I'm having a hard time seeing how that's going to be separate in
design from the bigger project. Because I know we haven't seen the new design on the
bigger project.
Schmadeke:
The location of the facilities has been established so that the scale will fit with the new
design. And then this hazardous-waste building is a portable building that, in this
contract, will be moved over adjacent to the new office building.
Kubby:
Okay, so was the design of that moveable building going to be the same no matter what
the design of the bigger project is?
Schmadeke: Right. It is.
Kubby: That makes sense. Thank you.
Lehman: Other agenda items?
(AGENDA #7: PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATE OF
COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE WETHERBY PARK REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID,
DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING
TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.
Vanderhoef: Question about putting more and more prairie grass kinds of park ....
Lehman: Which item are you talking about?
Vanderhoef: Seven. In the plan they're talking about a section of prairie grass. And as I understand
it, prairie grass needs to have a bum-off or something every so many years. And I don't
know how we're going to handle that public bum-off within the city limits in future
years since we have a no-bum law.
Kubby: There's an exception in the ban on burning for this kind of thing.
Atkins: We've done that before ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 11 of 69
Norton:
Atkins:
Yeah, there was an exception.
On a very limited basis we've had bum-offs that are very controlled (can't hear).
Vanderhoef: I know we can do it very controlled; it's just a matter of whether it's a law or not. Okay.
Norton: I think we talked about that when that (can't hear) out there at Walden, Rohret Road,
remember where it curves? There's a pretty good-size patch there.
Vanderhoef: Mm-hm. On the comer of Rohret and Walden.
Atkins: That's correct.
Norton: I think we (can't hear) about that would have to be burned off now and then.
Atkins: As I understand it, Dee, Terry spent most of the time with the neighbors. And as it was
explained to me, they're aware of the consequences of, because of this design plan, that
prairie plantings were something that they may have to live with (can't hear).
Vanderhoef: And they understand that...
Atkins: I certainly hope so.
Vanderhoef: there will be a bum-off at some (can't hear). That's my concern, that when it's being
designed, that people recognize that this will happen and not come back and say, "Well,
I have allergies," or whatever they're concerned with.
Atkins: Well, I think that you're correct. It has to be burned offifit's to thrive.
Norton: Take your laundry inside.
Vanderhoef: Yeah, take your laundry in and wear your mask (can't hear).
Champion: It's a very quick bum-off, though. I mean, it doesn't take long to bum. It is not like it's
going to be burning all day.
Atkins: I've observed one in my career, and it worked well. Very controlled circumstances.
And, in fact, I think there's someone locally, or in the area, that someone hired to do the
bum-off, and our fire folks are on standby.
Vanderhoef: And we publish when we're going to do bum-offs (can't hear)?
Atkins: IfI recall, the last time, Dee, we actually put a notice out to everybody in the area. I
mean, we chuckled, but the point was, yeah, bring your laundry in, we don't need to
cause any (can't hear).
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 12 of 69
Vanderhoef: I just don't recall when we did that.
Atkins: It's been a couple years ago.
Lehman: Must not have been too big a problem.
Vanderhoef: Must not have been (can't hear).
Atkins: I remember (can't hear) for that.
Lehman: Other agenda items?
(AGENDA #14: CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, ENTITLED "POLICE
REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "ANIMAL CONTROL.")
Norton: (Can't hear). I think (can't hear) about item 14. We've got a letter about the invisible
fence (Kathleen Hanson). You talked to her too?
Lehman:
I called Misha today. And my understanding--and Eleanor, if you are familiar with this,
you can correct me .... My understanding is that the present City ordinance does not
recognize an electronic fence as a confinement device for any animal. So, in other
words, electronic fences for the control of pets is not recognized as complying with the
present code. Now, this doesn't change anything; it clarifies it, but it doesn't change
anything. Now, Misha told me today that we do not make a habit of picking up animals
out of people's front yards. We do make a habit of picking up animals when we have
complaints or when they're running around. But that we routinely do not stop and pick
up animals that are wandering in someone's front yard. I don't know how this ordinance
changes anything from what we're doing right now.
[?]:
Just spells it out.
Norton: Right.
Champion:
I think it spells it out, and I think if you look at electrical fences as a training tool for
your animals... but that any animal who wants to leap over or through an electric fence
will. So, I think the whole case of spelling this out is if your animal runs out of your
yard and bites the mailman, you are responsible.
Thornberry: That law is already on the books.
Champion: Yeah, that's what I mean. It doesn't ....
Thornberry: We've already got that. I don't know why we need another one.
Kubby:
It's not an addition. This isn't an addition; it's a clarification so that people understand
their responsibilities.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 13 of 69
Lehman:
Champion:
Thornberry:
Champion:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Lehman:
Thornberry:
Lehman:
Dilkes:
Norton:
Dilkes:
The one thing that it might do. If I were in the business of selling electronic fences and I
wanted to portray them as being a confinement device, I would have a very difficult time
with an ordinance that specifically says they are not.
They aren't!
Well, we're saying that they're not, but I don't know if we're the experts. I think that
the people that sell these fences have shown that, or they wouldn't be selling them. And
they're pretty expensive. If you want to keep your animal in the front yard--say you
have no backyard, for example--I wouldn't want to put a fence around my front yard. I
think they look pretty tacky.
Nobody says you have to.
But to have your pet out there, to throw a Frisbee or to throw a ball and have your dog
bring it back and interact with your animal ....
You can do that.
Well, you can't do that, really.
If your dog gets off your property and somebody complains, then you're got a ....
No, if you have a fence around your property, the dog can jump over the fence, too. Just
because you've got a fence doesn't insure that the dog's going to stay under control.
Under control, fight.
Right. In your yard. And I'm not sure what this says.
Well, it doesn't change the status of electronic fences ....
No. What does this do?
That portion of it I think probably clarifies electronic fences, but it doesn't change ....
Well, Eleanor, is that correct? It doesn't change anything in the way that whether or not
they are confinement devices for animals. They are not now, nor would they be under
this ordinance.
That's been our interpretation, and this just clarifies it, as I understand ....
You think it's a virtue to have it spelled out this way?
Yes.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 14 of 69
Thornberry: I'm just saying, I'm getting a little tired of new ordinances all the time restricting what
people can do in Iowa City, where they .... They can have a dog in Coralville and not
have a fence. They can have an electronic fence, keep it in their yard--no problem. We
have to have a new ordinance saying you can't do it ....
[Murmurs]
Thornberry:
Kubby:
Norton:
Kubby:
Thomberry:
Lehman:
Thornberry:
Lehman:
Champion:
Thornberry:
Champion:
Thomberry:
Champion:
Thomberry:
Champion:
I'm just saying ....
Did you not just hear our city attorney say this is not different, this is not new? This is a
clarification so people understand what the law is. It's not a new (can't hear). It's just
communicating.
Besides that, (can't hear) anyhow, Dean.
So, your point might be well taken on some other things we might do tomorrow night.
But I think it's not on this particular one.
Okay. Part of this ordinance is chipping. And that is new. And I don't like it!
Okay. But the electronic fence doesn't change anything. I mean ....
Then why even have it in here?
Well, I think that if, I really believe that if an electronic fence is not going to be
recognized, that it should state that it's not going to be recognized, so that people don't
buy an electronic fence with the idea that, implying that some sort of City code, when it
specifically says that it does not meet the code.
I don't think people are buying those fences to meet the City code.
Well, no, they're doing it to keep their animal in their yard. And they're working.
Right. And if they train their dog, it will work.
They do work.
But if they don't, it will not.
Well, neither would another fence. You know, if a dog wants to get out, and there's a
six-foot fence, a dog's going to get over a six-foot fence.
Well, it depends on the size of your dog.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 15 of 69
Thornberry: That's true. But you know, and then you can't have a seven-foot fence, because then
that doesn't meet the fence regulations and stuff like that for the Building Department.
But anyway ....
Do you know if we've had any actual complaints about this matter--I mean, this
clarification? Was there a complaint about it?
Dilkes: There's one in the packet.
Norton: Well, there's only been one (can't hear) biting on a mailman, weren't they?
Thornberry: Well, there's already ordinances that regulate animal behavior.
Norton: Well, we've looked at the cases, and I don't think all these fences are that kosher, Dean.
Some of them are good, and some of them are not so good. There's different prices.
Thornberry: That's true.
Norton: So I think it's wise ....
Thornberry: Just like fencing.
Norton:
Norton:
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
O'Donnell:
Dilkes:
Lehman:
Dilkes:
Lehman:
Champion:
[Several]:
(Can't hear) they don't make this to confine them in the way we're talking about, so ....
I just wanted to make sure that people haven't mistakenly bought this electronic fence
and have spent the 2 or $3,000 and thinking they've met our ordinance and now it
doesn't, and they're going to ....
But it didn't before, either.
Well, is that interpretation, Eleanor, or is that the way it is?
I'm sorry. What was the question?
Have electronic fences ever met the requirement of confining an animal in Iowa City?
My understanding is that it has been our interpretation that it has not met that
requirement, and that this is a clarification.
Right.
I have another question about this dog and cat (can't hear). I don't think it's a bad idea.
But am I correct that we also house dogs and cats in Coralville?...
Yes.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 16 of 69
Thornberry: It's the Iowa City/Coralville Animal Shelter.
Champion: Have we got any feedback from Coralville on this?
Thomberry: Not that I know of. Oh, you mean for chipping animals? I don't know.
Vanderhoef: Well, we're not making their ordinance.
Norton: No.
Vanderhoef: They don't have to have .... I presume that the ordinance would be asked for out there
also (can't hear).
Norton: They have a separate .... Yeah.
O'Donnell: But if we pick up their animal, we're going to chip it here.
Kubby: If they're not tagged, and that's the only way that we'd chip it, if it didn't have tags. So
they would get chipped.
Norton: That's a good question. Them are people in Coralville on the Animal Control Advisory
Committee, so I assume they must be aware of this, but I'm not certain.
Thornberry: The general public in Coralville probably doesn't read our minutes.
Norton: I don't know. It's a good question. Maybe somebody ought to look into that and see.
O'Donnell: It's a good thing to look into.
Norton: Particularly about the microchipping being done.
Champion: Yes, fight.
Kubby: Except in terms of how the animal shelter's set up, ifthere's an animal that comes in
without a tag, it becomes kind of the temporary property of the shelters. These policies
are Iowa City policies.
Vanderhoef: No matter where it was picked up, you mean?...
Norton: Yeah, the critter's in your possession.
Lehman: Can we find out, Steve?
Thornberry: Yeah, what if it's picked up in Coralville?
Kubby: If it doesn't have a tag, it becomes the temporary property of the shelter.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 17 of 69
Lehman: Find out if animals picked up in Coralville would be chipped under our ordinance.
Thornberry: It shouldn't be.
Lehman: If we pass it.
Kubby: It could be an Iowa City dog; it could be a West Liberty dog.
Lehman: Right. We're going to find out tomorrow night--if they pick them up in Coralville, if
we're going to chip them. If a Coralville dog runs to Iowa City and gets picked up, it's
going to get chipped.
Kubby: They're being chipped now.
Norton: They pick a University Heights dog up, too ....
Thornberry: They shouldn't be!
Lehman: Oh, let's not confuse ....
Norton: Well, I suppose it's possible.
[Several talking at once]
O'Donnell: Finish the last part of that. It says, "and that prohibited animals may take part in a
permitted circus." What is that?
Lehman: We have animals that are prohibited.
Kubby: Yeah, there's a list of prohibited animals, like certain kinds of snakes, that you can't
have as a pet in the city, because they're so hard to take care of, they're, you know, so
dangerous. But if they come in as a part of an exhibit, it's okay.
Lehman: Mm-hm. Makes them legal in a circus.
O'Donnell: Yeah, that's wonderful.
Lehman: Do we have any other agenda items? Well, I was down at the animal shelter tonight
shopping for a dog. Oh, they've got beautiful dogs. And there're very, very, very few
dogs. Yeah, they got one in the airport, been running around the airport for a month and
they trapped ....
Thornberry: Okay!
Lehman: All fight, sorry. [Laughter]
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Cotmcil Work Session Page 18 of 69
Norton:
Lehman:
Did you get a dog or?...
No, I didn't get a dog. All fight, any other agenda items? Good.
Marketing of Tower Place and Parking Commercial Space 99-85 $2
Lehman: Marketing of Tower Place and Parking Commercial Space.
Atkins: That's mine, Ernie.
Lehman: Yes, sir.
Atkins:
As the Council is aware, we are moving along with these, what we now refer to as
Tower Place and Parking Project. One of the things that we have to deal with is that we
wish to market the commercial component of that project. We certainly want it done by
someone who 's knowledgeable in the area of commercial real estate. We are willing to
pay our fair share--that is, in the form of commission--for the sale of that property.
And we also, as a government, want to make sure that we treat all the buyers and the
sellers fairly.
I think if you read my memo... you sense a little bit of a dilemma. We do not want to
be placed, as a city government and at least the temporary owner of commercial
property, at some competitive disadvantage. But I'll be candid with you: every time
I've found myself into any kind of real-estate dealings, I invariably get some real-estate
officials mad at us. And I wanted to bring this to your attention.
It is our preference that we enter into a contract by way of a listing service with a real-
estate firm, and we have a recommendation for that firm, but I want it clearly understood
that that commission then, in effect, is split between that listing firm and any of the other
firms that might bring sales offers to us. We sort of envisioned this as hiring a lawyer,
an architect, but we recommend the Lepic-Kroeger firm to represent our interests. But I
can almost assure you there is always the potential for some (can't hear) to complain,
"Why didn't you pick my firm over that firm?" And I don't know of an effective
selection process other than (can't hear) individuals and general community reputation.
And that's not to say that the others aren't. And what I'm looking for from you is an
affirmation that that' s okay with us to proceed in that fashion.
Thornberry: You have to list with one firm?
Atkins: To get it on the multiple listing service, Dean, you select a firm ....
Thornberry: Right. Just like selling a house.
Atkins:
Yeah, just like selling a house. But they also then take over the responsibility. I mean,
we're the owner. They take over the responsibility of marketing, they advertise it, they
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 19 of 69
prepare the promotional brochure. They beat the bushes. But it's also made available to
other real-estate folks. It's just that the commission then is split.
O'Donnell: Could we not have like an open listing, Steve? Is that not available?
Atkins:
I suspect we could have an open listing. The only difficulty that I have with that is what
is the motivation for the person to do their best in the advertising and promotional
material, because that' s an out-of-pocket expense on their part. (Can't hear).
Kubby: The incentive is that even 3% is going to be a chunk of money ....
Atkins: Oh yeah!
Kubby:
So that, I don't know (can't hear). I didn't even think of that. It's interesting to just
think about that.
Lehman:
I talked to a couple of real-estate folks, one Friday and another this afiemoon. And my
initial thing was that there are probably four firms in town that are active in commercial
real estate--I mean, who are visibly active. So, why don't we just ask the Board of
Realtors to accept the listing, pay them the 3% commission, and let them do it. My
answer to that is that there's no incentive for them to promote the property. To expect
them to come in and advertise, do the brochures, and effectively market that property
just isn't going to happen if it's just a general listing with the entire Board of Realtors.
So, we do pay a 3%~r anybody pays the 3%---commission for a listing. And we have,
obviously staff has talked to one of the four recognized major players in commercial,
and Steve's concern--I think it's a valid concem--if we choose to accept one of these
folks, have we created a problem with the other three, or--and I think staff has visited
with these; I mean, this is not a decision that was not arrived at without some discussion
as we would with an engineer or an architect or whatever. So our decision needs to be,
are we willing to accept the staff' s recommendation and give the listing to one of the
four major players in the commercial?...
O'Donnell: I don't want to list it with one person.
Lehman: We're going to have to list it with one probably, but how do we select the one?
Thornberry:
Well, what we could do is split the properties up and list with at least two for six months
and then once that six months is up, if they haven't sold them, just like you could change
a realtor, go with two others. Or, you could do with one, and if they're not all sold, list
with another one. If they're not all sold, list with another one, and so on.
Atkins:
My only concern with that, Dean, is that--and my limited knowledge of commercial real
estate in the downtown environment--is that, you know, I think we're going to need
someone with sort of sticktoitiveness, that we need to say "We're committed to you." I
don't know the length of the contract. If you authorize us to proceed, I'm not so sure six
months is sufficient time to market commercial real estate.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 20 of 69
Champion: No, I don't think so either.
Vanderhoef:
What was the criteria in choosing?... I agree that there are several major players in
town, and how it got to this point, if you say there are four, is there a criteria that we're
using to choose one over the other three?
Atkins:
No. They're all reputable firms. Each of, I'm sure, the firms would say that of the other
firms. What we did, Dee, was--the instructions I provided for Joe was that we need to
put together a plan on how to sell the commercial component of this parking garage.
That's not something we're equipped to do--it's just not our field of interest. Joe, at his
discretion, called the Lepic-Kroeger firm to seek their advice and discussed with them.
There was no commitment on our part, their part, and they were gracious enough to
advise us. The staff (can't hear) talked it through, not unlike an attorney we might hire
or someone else. We figure that these are reputable folks and that they can represent our
interests. And I just simply wanted it here at this body understanding that we didn't go
through an extensive criteria, Dee, selection process. So, I'm not so sure what questions
we'd ask.
Champion:
Well, I think you're right in the sense that it needs to be given to one realtor, who is a
member of the multiple listings, because it needs to be promoted, it needs to be dealt
with in a proper manner. Whoever you choose, you're going to irritate somebody. But
this is a business proposition. It's better to me than us trying to sell the property.
Lehman: Oh, we can't do that.
Norton: "For sale by owner."
Champion:
Yes, "for sale by owner." To me, I don't know if we want to help develop some criteria
or ask the staff to help develop some criteria at least, so you at least have some basis. I
think that any of the four firms--I think I could name the four you're talking about--are
going to be very competent. And you just can't have four people doing it. It isn't going
to get done, because you don't want to step ....
Thornberry:
Connie, I think, though, a time limit needs to be placed on it. That if you hang your hat
on one wheel--no matter who it is--you've got to say, "Hey, you've got X number of
months or whatever to market this, to sell it, to do the job. Don't put it on the back
burner. Put it on the front burner. We're interested in getting these things sold." So I
think a time limit needs to be there. Now, whether it's six months or nine months or a
year, I don't know, but I think a time limit needs to be there. When I sold my
businesses, and I've sold four, I gave them nine months. Not six--six is a house,
normally.
Champion: Right.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 21 of 69
Thomberry: And then if you don't sell your house in six months, then your contract is up and you can
go with another one, or extend it for another six months, or whatever. But if we did it
for like nine months or a year... but I think we need a time limit on it.
[Several talking at once]
Arkins: (Can't hear). I think any reputable real-estate firm certainly recognizes that. And if
things are progressing satisfactorily, you can always extend the contract. Now, we're
also asking them to market a product that' s invisible.
Champion: Right, (can't hear).
Atkins: So, there is some element of... they have to be afforded an opportunity to ....
Thornberry: This is not something that they haven't done before.
Lehman: No, but you can't show the property ....
Thomberry: Well, I understand. You can show drawings and all this kind of stuff. How do you think
they get most of the people in there, in the mall before it was opened? They were
showing them drawings and everything else, and they got them in there. I mean, this
isn't something that's not (can't hear).
Lehman: Well, I think any listing contract has an expiration date.
Kubby: Yeah, I think a year .... I feel comfortable, I think it's a good idea to have a time frame
you're (can't hear).
Arkins: And I don't expect that to be difficult, so we do need to spend some time with a firm to
talk it through, to listen to what they have to do with respect to (can't hear).
[Several talking at once]
Lehman: All right?
Vanderhoef: There' s always drawing out of the hat.
Norton: That's the other option. But we don't do that .... For example, we're looking at
architects and so forth. We don't usually do that. And that's why I would think it isn't
altogether untoward to pick somebody.
All right.
Lehman:
Thomberry: I've got no problem with Lepic~r any of the others.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Cotmcil Work Session Page 22 of 69
Vanderhoef: I don't have a problem with any of them, either, and therefore that was one possibility
that (can't hear).
Lehman: Are we telling the staff to proceed with the recommendation?
Vanderhoef: Yes.
O'Donnell: The time limit .... If you're going to put a nine-month time limit on it, you're going to
really open up a can of....
Lehman: I think that time limit needs to be negotiated because of the nature of the project and
what is normally expected in commercial. That may be ....
O'Donnell: But six months or a year and a half, you're still going to have reserve prospects. You're
going to (can't hear).
Lehman: These are professionals. I think they can ....
O'Donnell: Well, you can't have one professional, Ernie, fight work on it for a year and then just
arbitrarily give it to somebody else.
Lehman: No. (Can't hear).
Atkins: I agree with that.
Thornberry: What do realtors do, Mike? And you've been in the business,. You know. If you've got
a six-month or nine-month contract and it's over and you go with somebody else, the
people that you've talked to, if any of those that you've talked to do it, it's your sale.
O'Donnell: That's reserve prospect, yeah.
Thomberry: Whatever.
[Several talking at once]
Atkins: (Can't hear) what I get was that it would be (can't hear) to proceed with negotiating a
contract with Lepic-Kroeger for the sale of Tower Place Parking/Commercial. If we do
not arrive at some reasonable agreement, we'll be back to see you.
Champion: Okay.
Lehman: You got a go.
Near Southside Commercial Revitalization Plan 99-85 S2
Lehman: All fight. Near Southside Commercial Revitalization Plan.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 23 of 69
Schoon:
In your packet is a resolution setting a public hearing on an amended Near Southside
Commercial Urban Revitalization Plan. At the mayor's request, staff has prepared
amendments to the plan regarding what projects would be eligible for property-tax
exemption in the near southside commercial area.
Under the current Near Southside Plan, in order to be eligible, the project must be for
nonresidential commercial use. The project cannot have more than 20% of the above-
grade portion of the project as residential and must contain at least three stories of
nonresidential commercial. This is different than what is proposed in the Central
Business District Urban Revitalization Plan, where the only requirement is that the
eligible portion of the building be for nonresidential commercial uses. There' s no limit
on how much of it can be for residential purposes or how much has to be for
nonresidential commercial uses. In order to make these two areas consistent, we've
placed amendments before you that would do that. Given that the CB-5 has been
thought of as an extension of the downtown area, that it would seem reasonable to make
the requirements in the CB-5 area consistent with the downtown. Also, it seems
inconsistent that, in an area that is to be a more intensive commercial use--the CB-10
zone--that its requirement for commercial use to meet property-tax exemption would
actually be less than in the CB-5 zone, which, though it's an intensive commercial use--
not as, or provides for intensive commercial use--it's not as great as in the CB-10. So it
would seem reasonable to amend the Near Southside Commercial Urban Revitalization
Plan to be consistent with that that's proposed for the central business district plan.
There are other minor amendments in the plan to do some minor housekeeping. And I
would be happy to address any questions you have.
Vanderhoef: First of all, do we have any property right now that has taken advantage of the
exemption since this plan went in?
Schoon: No, we do not.
Vanderhoef: Okay. So if we do not, then after we amend the plan--if we do amend the plan, rather--
would the ten-year length of plan or the exemption start at the time of the amendment?
Schoon:
No, the ten-year length of the plan itself, meaning the period in which exemption would
be available for application, would continue from 1994. So we have not amended the
length of the plan. But if someone applies for abatement in 2003, and they want the ten-
year exemption schedule, they would receive the ten-year exemption schedule from that
date on.
Vanderhoef: Would there be any reason why we wouldn't, since we're doing the new plan for the
central business district that will have a ten-year as of this year, if we pass it? Would
there be an advantage for us to do the same with this one so that they would fall
together?
Lehman: I don't know that I'm understanding this.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 24 of 69
Schoon: The plan has a ten-year life.
Lehman: In other words, if we amended the plan today, it would expire--the deadline for making
application for any abatement would be in the year 2009 on September 13th?
Schoon: No, it's from the original date of adoption.
Vanderhoef: That's why I was asking. It goes back to the year the plan was adopted, which is '94,
and I'm asking, should we make it consistent with the downtown business district and
change, vote on the whole plan so that this year, 1999, becomes year one of the ten?
Thornberry: Makes sense to me.
Schoon: Sure, I would have no problem with that.
Vanderhoef: Okay.
Schoon: So, we'll amend the plan so that its expiration date is 2009?
Lehman: Make it consistent with the one for downtown.
Vanderhoef: Make it consistent with downtown is what I was suggesting. Then as I read page two of
the plan, which is about the third page in, there's a heading in the middle of the page,
"Commercial or Urban Revitalization Plan Objectives."
Kubby: It's page 119.
CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 99-84 SIDE 1
Vanderhoef: It seemed rather inconsistent with what we are now doing, and it still is talking about this
is pushing for the commercial uses and other than commercial residential uses. And it
just seems like that that isn't stating what our objective is if we change this over now to
have only one floor of commercial and allow residential up above.
Norton: We're changing our logic a little, yeah.
Vanderhoef: We're changing the focus of the plan to more residential than commercial, as it was
originally written. And it just seems like those first two paragraphs there still point the
plan in the way of commercial.
Schoon: Dee, see how I still read them was that we're supporting the development of
commercial; we're not subsidizing the development of the residential component of the
structure.
Norton: Yeah, we're backing off that.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 25 of 69
Lehman:
Norton:
Norton:
Schoon:
That's the way I read it, too. The abatement applies only to commercial, so the
encouragement would only be for commercial; there's no enticement whatsoever for
residential.
We earlier had an enticement for residential, right? Because on the near south side--we
were trying to encourage some residential, weren't we, originally, in the near south side?
Well, we were trying to encourage commercial, because we were requiring three levels
of (can't hear).
And, and.
Well, south of Court Street we have a Near Southside Residential Urban Revitalization
Plan.
Norton: Yeah.
Thornberry: What is says---commercial uses other than commercial residential uses, and to
encourage the use of historic and architecturally significant structures. If that
architecturally significant structure were residential, then what?
Lehman: It applies.
Thornberry: The same would apply.
Schoon:
Norton:
Schoon:
Norton:
Lehman:
Norton:
Lehman:
Norton:
Lehman:
Correct.
The same thing applies, yeah.
Any other questions?
Is that all going to be explained on the consent calendar? I take it not.
Well, from my perspective ....
They're not going to understand what we're doing.
That our consideration of this would be making it consistent with what we are doing
downtown.
Yeah. In terms of the public, they're going to have no idea what we're talking about
here. Might take pretty long to explain it.
But I thinkMo you think the public's kept track of what's going on?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 26 of 69
Norton:
Lehman:
Norton:
Kubby:
Thornberry:
Lehman:
Thomberry:
Kubby:
Thomberry:
Kubby:
Thomberry:
Lehman:
Thornberry:
Lehman:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Lehman:
Probably not, probably not. Those who are interested have.
Right. So those who are interested and have kept up with the downtown will also be
kept up on this.
We'll do it again, fight.
So we had kind of these three areas. We've thought about them in the past differently. I
mean that south of Burlington was an exten[sion] of downtown but had its own
characteristics, because we had a zone plan that was kind of divided into two between
Burlington and Court and then south of Court. And so I guess kind of a big-picture
question for me is why is it that demarcation now going to go away so that Court to Iowa
is more seen as one area by making it consistent with the CBD? And then from Court
south is seen as different. Seems to me that Burlington down to the railroad tracks is
more physically connected than to the noah because of that big arterial street. So, I
guess I'd just like to hear some conversation about (can't hear).
I think along Burlington is very commercial, is more commercial than south of
Burlington.
South of Court.
South of Court. I think it's more active commercial, even though there are some
residential units above (can't hear). I just think it's a different animal down there.
And you think it should be consistent with downtown?
What, the ?...
I mean, the kinds of uses and incentives for those (can't hear).
Even though it is different, it's not CB-I O.
But it's lots more extension.
It is--down to the tracks.
Well, down to Court Street, anyway.
We had a lot of notes (can't hear).
Well, (can't hear) CB-10 has a very, very commercial down to Court Street, and then a
different animal, really, from Court down to the tracks.
More residential.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 27 of 69
Thornberry: Well, commercial residential.
Lehman: Yeah.
Norton: I've got to review our logic. It does seem to me we've changed our logic somewhat.
Kubby:
Yeah, and was there discussion amongst Planning staff about that? I mean, because
there was a real kind of design to south of Burlington that had tons of community input
and lots of changes even after it was first voted on.
Franklin:
I guess I don't see a shift, Karen, because the zoning designation still from CB-10 to
CB-5 to the PRM--which is the high-density, high-intensity commercial, to a little bit
less intense, to the high-intensity residential--is still there. And it was just a matter of
how we were applying the incentives. I mean, it would make more sense, really, to have
the three-story requirement downtown and the one story in the CB-5. You know? Or
you have them both the same in some other respect, except we just didn't open it up to
all of that .... I mean, you could have three stories in downtown, three stories in CB-5.
You could have three and two or all the same.
Lehman:
Refresh my memory. If I'm not mistaken, this amendment would pretty much parallel
what was proposed by staff when you originally talked about the block just south of
Burlington. We added the three-level commercial ....
Franklin: Yes.
Lehman: Which hasn't worked anywhere else in town.
Franklin: The first time we proposed it, I think we had one story of commercial.
Lehman: Well, basically what we're talking about is what you folks proposed to us five years ago.
Franklin:
You know, I don't exactly remember because of all the iterations what the beginning of
it was ....
Norton:
Well, we were trying to attract some good commercial office (can't hear) above there.
That's what we were trying to--some office activity (can't hear).
Franklin: Mm-hm, yeah.
Thomberry: The only two people who know about it is you and Karin.
[Several talking at once]
Champion: Well, most buildings downtown are two story ....
Lehman: I know that. Some of us knew it then, but we're starting to see the picture more clearly.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 28 of 69
Franklin: Well, I think one of the things that has changed, too, and maybe this is being
shortsighted, but if this is to be an incentive and three stories of commercial at this point
in time and this economy right here is probably more than .... It's going to happen.
Norton: It's unrealistic ....
Franklin: Yeah. I mean, I hate to say that, but .... And so the advantage of having at least some
incentives that practically can work and maybe move along the redevelopment in that
Burlington-Court area to the extent that it will redevelop. I don't know.
Vanderhoef: It doesn't work the way it is.
Norton: Yeah, right, so we might as well do something different, right.
Vanderhoef: So we've already spent five years with this, and no one has taken us up on the offer.
Franklin: Yeah, I guess five years is a good period of time to reevaluate.
Vanderhoef: I'll go along with that.
Lehman: Thank you, Karin. David, thank you.
Closure of Alley Court and Linn 99-84 S1
Lehman: Closure of alley at Court and Linn.
Kubby: We didn't get anything except that one letter, fight?
Atkins: That's it, and you have another letter ....
[Several talking at once]
Kubby: I just felt kind of lost, like I have no idea what's going on.
Atkins: Chuck's going to walk us through (can't hear).
Karr: There are two handouts tonight.
Atkins: Yeah, two handouts.
Thornberry: And, you know, it's even needed to go down there and look at. Emie and I went down
and looked at that thing, and ....
Lehman: In the dust.
Thornberry: In the dust, yeah, demolishing across (can't hear). Doggone, it makes a lot of....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 29 of 69
Norton: Tell us about it then.
Schmadeke: You should have a letter dated September 10th from Knutson Construction and a letter
dated September 13 from Jay Honohan. Jay Honohan's letter is representative of those
properties along the east side of the alley. What we have on file with the City is a plan
to construct a building at the comer of Linn and Court Street that covers, I believe, three
City lots. And on the east side of that building, the building wall is flush with the west
alley property line. So, to construct ....
Vanderhoef: Do we have a map?
Schmadeke: I don't have a map with me now.
Norton: The building's fight up against an alley. Why?
Schmadeke: The building's fight up against the alley line.
Champion: Linn and Court. What's there now?
Norton: Linn and Court, across the street from St. Pat's behind the Northwestern Bell.
Champion: Okay. I know exactly where they're at. Okay.
[Map is found and posted on podium]
Schmadeke: This is the alley here. Court Street, Linn Street.
[Several talking, laughing]
Lehman: Okay. This is the alley.
Schmadeke: In order to construct the building, they will have to encroach onto the alley, because the
building wall is on the west alley property line. Along with the construction of the
building, they're going to extend the storm sewer that exists in the alley further north.
You get up to the noah, and the storm sewer ends about fight here now, and they're
going to extend that further north so all the roof drains from the building will drain into
the storm sewer.
Lehman: Presently it'll drain where?
Schmadeke: Just drain back onto the alley.
Kubby: So you say at the very beginning that in order to build the building, they have to do this.
Can't they just have the building be a little smaller and move it further to the west?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 30 of 69
Schmadeke: Right.
Kubby: Okay.
Norton: Right,
Schmadeke: Right,
utility
poles.
But "as designed."
I mean that' s an important distinction.
"as designed."
"as designed." In addition to that, the power company will be placing the electric
underground. Currently it lies along the east property line of the alley on power
And those power poles encroach about two feet into the alley. So prior to
construction, Mid-American is proposing to place that utility underground so it will not
encroach into the alley. So if they close the west half of the alley, there will be the east
half, which is ten feet wide, will remain open during construction.
Lehman: Is that wide enough for semis?
Schmadeke: Right. Semis can get through there.
Lehman: Delivery vehicles can get through there.
Schmadeke: Right.
Lehman: Okay.
Norton: Wait a minute. The power poles are on the east side ....
Lehman: They're going to be removed.
Thornberry: Because they're cutting in the alley right there.
Norton: Where are they going to put it underground--along the west side?
Schmadeke: No, along the east side, as I understand it.
[?]: At the developer's expense (can't hear).
Norton: So during the first part, that'll have to be closed while they get that done, yeah.
Schmadeke: Right. At the north and south end of the alley, they'll have to close that to get the
undergrounding in.
Norton: Boring (can't hear).
Vanderhoef: And how long does it take to do the?...
Schmadeke: About three weeks, I think, they said for that work.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 31 of 69
Thornberry: How many power poles are we talking about that are in that line now?
Smith: We're approximately upgrading 150 feet, three of them along that route.
Schmadeke: Probably three one every 150 feet.
Kubby: And how long would the alley be closed?
Thomberry: To do the power poles?
Norton: They said three days for the power line.
Schmadeke: Three weeks for the power line.
Kubby: (Can't hear) was that the extent of the closure of the alley?
Schmadeke: Yeah, Knutson wants to close the alley then for ten months, through the end of July next
year.
Thornberry: All of it or part of it?
Schmadeke: The west ten feet.
Lehman: That part would be closed for ten months.
Norton: Was it really a pertinent issue with that west wall, or?...
Schmadeke: No, a building permit has not been issued.
Lehman: Chuck, there will be a storm sewer put in here, and the alley will be resurfaced, in
addition to the utilities' going underground.
Schmadeke: Right.
Lehman: Obviously, in order to close half of the alley and maintain access, polesmelectrical has
to be undergrotmd, because as long as the poles are there, you can't use half the alley.
Schmadeke: Right.
Lehman: Now, we don't want to redo the alley and put the storm sewer in before we build the
building.
Schmadeke: We could do that ....
Lehman: Well, the reason I asked is that, if we were to do the electrical and the storm sewer at the
same time, would that lessen the amount of time that the alley would be totally closed?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 32 of 69
Schmadeke: I don't think so, because once they're through with construction, then we want them to
repave that alley abutting their building.
Lehman: After, right, fight.
Schmadeke: The total width, and it'll have to be closed for about a month to do that work.
Lehman: Okay.
Schmadeke: And that would include the storm sewer work then.
Thornberry: Well, the people who are building this building will be paying for the utility movement
and the resurfacing of the alley and the new storm sewer?
Schmadeke: Yes.
Thornberry: Well, that's a plus.
Kubby: Will it be a solid wall along that alley, or what will the barrier be?
Schmadeke: I think the first level is parking and access from the alley. Then I think it's a solid wall
after that.
Norton: Well, some windows, presumably.
Schmadeke: Right.
Norton: You got a view out onto the alley.
Kubby: No, I mean during construction, while halfofit's closed, will there be any kind of
barricades?
Schmadeke: Yeah. I believe they're going to put in a chain-link fence along the center of the alley--
a six-foot chain-link fence.
Lehman: Kind of a security fence.
Schmadeke: Right.
Kubby: So, it's three weeks for the utility work, but then there'll be construction of that side of
the building, and I assume that there will have to be some closure of the alley for that.
Schmadeke: Just that west end (can't hear).
Kubby: (Can't hear). They won't need the whole thing closed for periods of time.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 33 of 69
Vanderhoef: Three weeks is the only time that it will be totally closed, is that fight?
Schmadeke: Well, a month at the end after the building is up and they have to repave the alley.
That'd be a month closure.
Norton: That would not be mitigated by, for example, moving the wall westward, would it?
Lehman: No.
Schmadeke: Unless you moved it ....
Norton: That wouldn't avoid (can't hear) that paving project.
Thornberry: No.
Schmadeke: No, we'd still have the storm sewer work to do.
Norton: And you would still have to take a chunk of the alley in any case, wouldn't you, if you
moved the west wall back three feet or something? You'd still have to close part of the
alley, wouldn't?...
Schmadeke: If you only moved it three feet, but if you moved it ten feet or greater, then ....
Norton: Yeah, then you'd have to move it quite a bit.
Lehman: However, if you shorten the building ten feet so you don't have to close half the alley,
you still would have the three weeks with electrical work and the four weeks for the
storm sewer and the paving of the alley. Is that correct?
Schmadeke: You'd have the storm sewer work. I don't know if the electrical work would ....
Thornberry: But we need to do the electrical work. Why would they even need to resurface the alley
if they weren't using it? If they weren't using, and they moved the building back ten
feet and they weren't using that alley, why would they have to resurface the alley?
Lehman: They're going to put a storm sewer in. They got to take the alley out.
Thornberry: Why would they have to? they wouldn't even have to pay for a new storm sewer.
[Several talking at once]
Schmadeke: Well, I think the cable television and the telephone are going to be relocated as well.
But, depending on how much they tore up the alley, yeah, it may have to be repaved if
they stayed back away from the alley.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 34 of 69
Thornberry: Right, if they didn't use it, they wouldn't have to (can't hear).
Champion: If we have to redesign their building ....
Thornberry: That's correct. They have to.
Champion:
No, that's a tremendous expense. Secondly, all of a sudden, then, you've got an area by
the alley that probably is just going to collect more litter and junk. So, you know, I think
buildings on the alley are ideal, on the line, as close as they can get.
Thornberry: I agree.
Champion:
For future maintenance and care. I mean, that's another consideration, is the future. It's
going to be inconvenient for the four weeks and the three weeks, but we can certainly
assume the rest of the time that access to that alley could be maintained.
Norton: Do we have a business setbacks requirement? What is the setback requirement there?
Franklin: Zero.
Norton: Well, then, we're within that.
Kubby:
So I guess I want to understand from the business owners who will be inconvenienced
that total of seven weeks that there are--there's signage about that the alley is open, that
there are signs that people know that they can get back there, because they're on the
street. Another way people can park to get to those businesses is from that alley, and,
you know, ten feet isn't really--you know, people were having a hard time around (can't
hear) ten feet away.
Norton: Hah. Nine feet. They had a terrible time.
Kubby:
So I just want to hear what those concerns are. I mean, we've had the one letter that--so
I don't understand what our decision-making process is. Is it something that would
appear on a future agenda?
Schmadeke:
Right. We will have a resolution approving the closure of the alley, plus they want use
of part of the Court Street fight-of-way and Linn Street fight-of-way. And so that'll all
be included in the resolution.
Norton: And that'll be a resolution at our next meeting?
Schmadeke: Right.
Lehman:
I think Karen's got a really--could part of that also provide that there be, I hate to use
the word "adequate" and I also hate to use the word "signage," that is accept--? There
has to be signage telling people ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 35 of 69
Kubby:
Lehman:
Schmadeke:
Lehman:
Kubby:
Champion:
Norton:
Kubby:
Thornberry:
Schmadeke:
Thomberry:
Schmadeke:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Schmadeke:
Lehman:
Thomberry:
Lehman:
There has to be accommodation.
That' s right. There has to be accommodation to tell folks .... Can that be part of the
resolution so that those folks are (can't hear)?
Sure. We can require a signage plan for (can't hear).
I think that should be part of it, too.
I mean, we've heard from one property owner there who'll be affected, but we haven't
heard from, so I guess, you know, people can come to our public discussion tomorrow
night. If they had more time to think about it ....
I need to go over and look at it.
(Can't hear).
Then just having it on our agenda in two weeks and expecting people to speak in two
weeks and then us make a decision that night--I'd rather hear from people tomorrow
night.
Chuck, if we chose to close or cover, bag, some of the parking meters along there for the
employees that work in those buildings, to give more parking to their customers during
this building period, who would pay for the bagging or the nonuse of those parking
meters? The City?
No, the property owner that's doing the construction. But I don't think ....
What does it cost (can't hear) bag a meter?
Well, whatever that rate is per day, they would pay that amount.
What is (can't hear)--S5? $107
I thought it was .... We have a charge in our schedule, but I can't remember it. Twelve
(can't hear).
But I don't think any parking stalls'll be lost as a result.
If we're not losing any parking stalls, then we wouldn't have to worry about (can't hear).
Well, ifthere's still enough room to get through there.
True.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 36 of 69
Schmadeke:
Honohan:
Smith:
Honohan:
Yeah. I think there--is there four or five businesses, Jay, that are affected there?
Okay. We have four of the property owners here tonight. I am speaking also for the
Quik Trip at the comer of Gilbert and Burlington, and also for Papa Johns--their
supervisor or manager is in Des Moines and couldn't make this meeting. We didn't
expect this kind of a meeting would take place tonight.
All of the property owners oppose closing of any portion of this alley at this time. One
of the reasons for this, and the basic reason, is that because of Gilbert Street, this is the
main access for all of these businesses. And as you close down a portion of this alley--
and it's a very narrow alley; it's only about twenty feet total. And it's crowded in there
right now when we have delivery vehicles in there. And we have the semis delivering
beer, pop, pizza products, bicycle stuff, into these businesses on a regular basis. I think
the bicycle shop is probably about twice a week, and the other businesses, the deliveries
are almost every other day for all these semis.
The City has already told us previously, not as a result of this alley business, that they
didn't want the delivery vehicles on Gilbert Street blocking off your main thoroughfare.
So we're stuck with this. In addition to the deliveries, as I stated, everybody comes in
here and parks their cars. We have parking spaces, and it's been a very community-
shared project amongst the businesses. And we've always gotten along real fine. I'd
like to correct, I think--are you Brian?
No, Terry Smith.
Terry, okay. Well, I talked to Brian today. As I understand it, the original proposal of
Mid-America, and you correct me if I'm wrong, was to put in some sort of a temporary
line situation with arms out fi'om the existing poles. And then that was changed, partly
and, Nick, you can correct me on this--Mr. Grunzweig from Knutson's is back there
right now. And I've been talking with everybody--all your staff--and everybody's
been very cooperative, Knutson included. But the original plan was to put temporary
arms up along here and bring the wires over. And then as a result of some of the
negotiations, the idea came that they would put it underground. It is my understanding
that if this alley isn't closed like they want to, it won't go underground; it doesn't
necessarily have to go underground.
So, our opposition is based on the fact that this'll have a terrific impact on our
businesses. And these are existing businesses, and this is an apartment house. Make no
mistake about it, it's simply an apartment house. Eighty percent of that building is
apartments and parking for apartments. It's not a commercial enterprise. You want to
promote commercial enterprises in this area. We think you ought to treat the five or six
that are here right now real good. Because we've been here. And we want to stay here.
And one thing that was mentioned by Chuck: this project is expected to be running until
July 31st, 2000. It's not just a five- or six-week project--it's a full year, or nine months
now.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 37 of 69
Thornberry:
Honohan:
Thornberry:
Honohan:
Thornberry:
Sham Russell is doing the demolition, and I think, as far as demolition goes and that sort
of thing, a little dusty, but it's been a very good job. But his trucks take up a heck of a
lot more than ten feet getting in and out of here. They take up the whole twenty feet.
The idea that we're gong to put construction trucks in here, and they've going to operate
on ten feet, doesn't sound reasonable to me, when we have the experience fight now of
Sham's trucks' taking up the whole area. They're taking up the whole alley.
I know the estimate, and I think that's a good estimate of four weeks, but I've never seen
a construction estimate that didn't run over. Also, I understand--and Terry, you can
correct me on this--they're going to dig a hole approximately four to six feet
somewhere in this area fight here to do the boring. That's going to close the entire alley
for three or four days. So we've got all this disruption. We've got all this construction
going on, and it's going to hurt us. And we don't want to get hurt, frankly. We've got
these businesses that depend on that alley. You have promoted that alley as our means
of access by what you did on Gilbert, and I'm not complaining about the Gilbert
construction. But you have sort of said, "Okay, we're going to do this on Gilbert. Now,
you use this to get in and out." And now, they want to close this for this apartment
house.
I know they'd have to redo the plans, but they could move this in twelve feet real easy.
That's the first thing I told to Nick Grunzweig when I talked to him. Obviously they
don't want to give up the twelve feet. By my attorney's calculations, we're probably
talking about a gross of $500,000 a year off those apartments. They're putting in 42
two-bedrooms and six one-bedrooms. That's 90 students. The parking spaces are only
64. They're going to create another problem for us, and that's not your problem, but
we're going to have students parking over in our lot. We're going to have to chase them
out. We've had that with the two buildings that were there before, before they tore them
down. But it wasn't severe. But then, we didn't have a five-story apartment house next
to us. I'm going to concur with what Karen said about the development of the
commercial here. Mr. Clark is still advertising 9,000 square feet on the building across
from the Rec Center. Clark's still got empty space on Burlington that he can't rent. We
don't think that there's any real desire for commercial here. It's just to put 48 units of
apartments for students.
I have a question .... If they have to put a fence down, that security fence, or ....
Well, he's supposed to fence down the middle now, I understand.
Then that would preclude him from going any further over into that alley. He'd have to
be on the west side of the fence, wouldn't he? The construction vehicle?
The construction vehicles supposedly--I don't see how they're going to get in there.
Well, that's their problem.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 38 of 69
Honohan:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Thomberry:
Champion:
Honohan:
Champion:
Thomberry:
Honohan:
Thomberry:
Honohan:
Thornberry:
Honohan:
Gnmzweig:
Well, except that if they can't do something, and they're going to have lots of subs, I
think the subs are going to be in that alley.
What if--and I haven't even asked if this is possible--but during this period of time,
whether it be the alley tear-up or whatever, if we would allow truck parking on the west
lane of Gilbert .... Because if you can't use the alley, and you've still gotta have
deliveries, and I know that's important, we could, to our discretion, block off that one--
you gotta have deliveries!
I understand that, Dean.
And if it's blocked off doing electrical or the stormwater or whatever, you gotta have
deliveries. Block off that one lane for that one block for deliveries during that time.
But I think their main problem and concern, too, is going to be your customers park back
there.
Customers and clients.
Yeah, and I've got to go over and look at this. I mean, that is a major concern. They're
not going to want to go through a blocked alley--they're not going to go.
I wasn't quite finished. That's the one. Doing the deliveries in front, and that would
also free up that alley for customer space, because when trucks are back delivering, it's
very difficult for customers to get back there. Because I saw a beer truck in there
delivering, and a customer could not get through there if they wanted to as it is right now
without being blocked off.
No, they can't.
So, if you put the trucks out in front, that would leave that alley free and clear for
customers, and with the fence being there and putting the construction vehicles on one
side of the fence, I don't really ....And, once it's finished, it's going to be a whole lot
nicer than it is now.
Well, as far as we're concerned, it's nice enough right now.
But it could be better without those poles. It would be a lot more accessible.
Well, without the poles, it would be. That's right. However, at least at this point, I don't
know if we're--are we still going to go with the underground if you only get the ten
feet, Nick?
Without the alley, right .... My name is Nick Gmnzweig. With using ten foot of the
right-of-way for construction purposes, the power lines have to go underground to allow
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 39 of 69
the other ten foot of right_of_way to be fully utilized.
about two feet west of the east right-of-way line.
Right now the power poles are
Thomberry: That's going to be done first. The power lines are going to come down first, is that
correct?
Grunzweig: That'd be correct.
Honohan: And they have made--I checked with Mid-American. They've made arrangements that
the power supply--so you understand the full picture. I'm not sure I should tell you this,
but... because it's not for our side, but they're going to do the corrections and the
temporary hook-ups and that between 1:00 AM and 5:00 AM. And Knutson or Kroeger's
going to have to pay for that, too.
Thornberry: Would that scenario work for everybody?
Honohan: Well, ifit's 1:00 to 5:00 AM.
Thornberry: No, with the access, the delivery, the whole thing.
Norton: Offof Gilbert, I don't like that. I can't see access off of Gilbert. I can't.
Thornberry: Well, you gotta have deliveries.
Norton: Then keep it in back.
Vanderhoef: You have to have deliveries, and I'm concemed about safety issue of retraining folks
who think that's a lane line.
Thornberry: Hey, if you get barricades and you get flashing your lights up there ....
Vanderhoef: So it's going to be more than a block. It'll be a ....
Thornberry: But it's only going to be for three weeks or until they get those power lines underground.
Vanderhoef: I understand that. I just have a ....
Honohan: No, it won't.
Thornberry: Or whatever it takes.
Honohan: It'll be about seven weeks: the month for the paving and all that.
Thornberry: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, they're going to pave it after the building is up. They're not
going to pave it first.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 40 of 69
Lehman: But it's still four more weeks (can't hear).
Thornberry: Yeah, but it's not all at one time. The other may be in the middle of the summer. If it's
July, the students won't even be here, so ....
Kubby: I want to think about that Gilbert Street thing, because there are a lot of pedestrians
crossing the block fight there. And then you have the delivery trucks there and people
cramming in at peak time, and all the pedestrians. I really would want to think that
through and have staff make some recommendations. Maybe that's where it could go
was that we want to see what are the options for delivery.
Thornberry: Mm-hm.
Vanderhoef: (Can't hear) option might be some hours during that ....
Kubby: That's maybe off peak.
Thornberry: But fight now, you get a delivery truck in that alley, you're not getting any customers
through the alley. Those semis (can't hear).
Norton: But I'm concerned (can't hear) deliver off of Court somehow. Temporary delivery off
of Court. You can't get fight behind, but you might still be able to manage it. I don't
see how you can do it off of Gilbert very well.
[Several talking at once]
Honohan: There's one other thing of note that I think you should be aware of when you talk about
Gilbert. This intersection already has a high number of accidents. We probably average
an accident there, we hear out of my office window.
Champion: Which would be--right by your office?
Honohan: At Gilbert Court, fight by (can't hear).
Thornberry: You can't see around. You gotta ....
Honohan: We probably average one accident there every two weeks during the school year or
more.
[Murmurs]
Honohan: So blocking off--I don't know. That would be your decision, but ....
Thornberry: That might even help things.
Honohan: Well, it might make it worse!
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 41 of 69
Kubby:
Honohan:
Lehman:
Honohan:
Lehman:
Honohan:
Lehman:
Honohan:
Lehman:
Honohan:
Thornberry:
Champion:
Honohan:
Norton:
Lehman:
¥eah.
When I exit the office, I go around Linn Street so I don't have to go out that intersection.
Jay, let me ask you this. Let's just say that, for the sake of discussion, that building were
to be moved in twelve feet, so the alley doesn't have to be closed. And the alley does
not have to be repaved, and there doesn't have to be any storm sewer go in there, and
we're going to leave the wires exactly the way they are once the building is completed.
Now, you're going to be sitting there with a building that instead of.... How many
units is it going to have?
Forty-eight, 42 ....
So we have 40 of 48 units. You've still got almost as many cars parked there, but
you've got a really, really ugly alley with light posts. You don't have the eave spouts
going into the storm sewer, you've got them running in the surface as you do now. You
don't have the electrical underground, you don't have any .... Which would you prefer?
Well, if you could do it in a day, we'd prefer .... [Laughter]
Oh, no, no, no, no. No, I hear you and I know that ....
If you could do it I a day, we wouldn't have any objection. But we're talking about a
whole year, Emie.
I know that.
We're talking about a whole year here. We're not talking about .... They want to close
that alley until July 3 1st, 2000.
Not close it.
No.
Well, close half. Originally they wanted to close the whole thing.
(Can't hear) for seven weeks.
Let me just say this. I was on Washington Street when we replaced the street. I was on
Clinton Street when that--and we moved there the first of May. The street was closed
until the first of November. You couldn't even use the alley--couldn't get down that
alley. And, yeah, there was a little bit of an inconvenience, but, boy, it's sure nice now.
And I don't know, I realize there's an inconvenience, and my biggest concem is
probably not with your customers' parking, because they'll probably find it. But pizza
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 42 of 69
places in and out, where you gotta get in, you gotta get out, and if you can't get in,
you're going to a different pizza place.
Champion: Right.
Lehman:
And I mean, I'm real concerned about that. You do have one alley access onto Gilbert.
I don't know how that could play into this whole thing.
Honohan: That is a private alley.
Norton: Yeah.
Honohan: That belongs to us. However, everybody uses it. We don't complain, but that alley
doesn't work for trucks. They don't (can't hear).
Lehman: Oh, no, no, no, no.
Honohan: The garbage collectors can't use it.
[Several talking at once]
Honohan:
The one response I have to your problem, and you were out of business for a while, that
was because it was for public benefit. This is not really for public benefit. This is just to
benefit the construction of an apartment house. If it was the public like, you know, when
you did Gilbert, that wasn't anything we complained about--when the City did
Gilbert--because that was for the public. But this isn't; this is just for an apartment
house.
Thornberry: Well, when they redid Highland, it hurt my business for six months real bad--like 50%
(can't hear).
Honohan: I know. I understand.
Thornberry: Yeah, but I didn't even want it. And it's even any better than it was, especially with
those stupid (can't hear). [Laughter]
Honohan: So you know now what we're afraid of.
Thomberry:
I know that, I know that. That' s why I'm talking delivery vehicles somewhere doing
something else to help those businesses. And just throwing money at it isn't going to
help. Because you lose customers, you lose it for a long time rather than just that short
period of time.
Honohan: That' s right.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 43 of 69
Norton:
Lehman:
Norton:
O'Donnell:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Thornberry: So I'm looking at keeping access open there. And with those power lines, not only do
you have the power lines there, but you've got the little pole beside the big pole
protecting the big pole. Right? Aren't there some little poles there too?
[Murmurs]
Thornberry: Some bumper poles or whatever they're called? I don't know. But anyway, I thought
there were more than just three.
Lehman: It's so dusty I couldn't see (can't hear).
Honohan: Oh, by the way, I think that the poles are closer than 150 feet there.
Smith: Well, they vary in ....
Honohan: If the alley is 300 feet ....
Thomberry: (Can't hear) more than three there.
[Several talking at once]
We aren't going to finish this tonight, are we, Ernie?
No, we're not.
Good.
(Can't hear) have to come up with a different solution.
We've got to look it over some more (can't hear).
Well, I don't know what it is, but .... And then have parking there for the customers. I
don't know.
Lehman: Well, I think we see the problem. We don't see any solution to it. There 's one other
thing--and I don't know, Chuck, if this is reasonable--but should this occur, would it be
possible or would it be desirable to require that deliveries, if this happens, that deliveries
to the Quik Trip and the bikes or whatever be limited to certain times of the day so we
don't have that half alley closed all day?
Kubby: But really, instead of designing this, why don't we just give staff direction to sit down
with all the players to come up with some solution to take care of the concerns. And they
can come back and tell us ....
Yeah, fight. (Can't hear).
Norton:
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 44 of 69
Thornberry: (Can't hear).
Lehman: Well, I agree with that, Karen, except that we have a proposal that staff thinks is okay,
and I'm not so sure that things like delivery hours ....
Kubby: But we're having concerns.
Lehman: Yeah.
Kubby: So we can direct them to work harder to find some specific .... I mean, I don't want to
sit here and design--I don't think it's my place.
Thornberry: I'm just throwing out alternatives. I can see throwing out alternatives, like Gilbert or
whatever. But if they can build to the property line and use half the alley, I don't want to
see them have to go back and redesign that whole building.
Champion: It might not be designed. It may just be a schematic thing.
Lehman: Well, Chuck, I don't know what the solutions are, if any. And Jay, obviously we
recognize there's problems. Were going to be dealing with this in two weeks?
[?]: Two weeks.
Lehman: We're discussing it again tomorrow night. (Can't hear).
Kubby: I would like to direct staff that we expect to see some specific solutions to preventing the
degree of negative effects on those businesses.
Thornberry: Well, you can tell them, "Find a solution," period. And if the players can't reach a
decision, then (can't hear).
Kubby: I know, but they can attempt to do that. Can we just say we'll talk about it in two
weeks? Without any staff direction, nothing happens.
Lehman: Chuck, you hear us? See what you can come up with, because, I mean, I think we
obviously share a lot of the same concerns, okay?
Thornberry: I'm ready to go with the project, but I'd like to see delivery (can't hear).
O'Donnell: How about that alley up right behind, between Quik Trip and that other place?
[Several talking at once]
Honohan: That belongs to Dwight Bode and Craig Camey. That 's private also.
O'Donnell: Because, there's a pretty good-sized alley there, which is ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 45 of 69
Honohan: It's really a parking area.
O'Donnell: But it goes through.
Honohan: It does go through. It's right opposite the Northwestern Bell, but that' s another thing:
Northwestern Bell doesn't like people driving through there either.
Thornberry: Well, they don't like a whole lot of things.
[Several talking at once]
Vanderhoef: Well, let's see what we can negotiate.
Lehman: All right. Thank you.
Champion: Thanks so much for coming.
[See additional discussion beginning on p. 48, paragraph 12, COUNCIL TIME.]
Appointment: Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission 99-85 S1
Lehman: Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission. We have no applications. All right.
Kubby: Maybe we need to .... This is maybe the third meeting in a row where we haven't had
any applicants for the Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission, so it'd be great if we
as individuals could focus on recruitment.
Norton: And they were going to still take on that interesting project about stormwater. Weren't
they gonna do one of their things, a creek survey (can't hear)? It seemed to me they're
really into some important activities, so ....
Council Time 99-85 S1
Lehman: Okay, Council Time.
Thornberry: All right, I've got a couple of things.
Gene Kroeger: Chance to speak tomorrow?
Thornberry: Is Chuck gone?
Lehman: We're going to give you a chance.
Norton: (can't hear) needs a shot, yeah.
Atkins: We'll get Chuck.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 46 of 69
Norton:
Lehman:
Norton:
Lehman:
Atkins:
Lehman: Don't worry.
Thornberry: All right, I'll save that one.
You mean this time? Yeah.
I know. You should have said something. We ....
We should have done it tonight, you mean.
Well, he should have said something. I didn't realize (can't hear).
Folks (can't hear), I brought this issue on the agenda now, sort of anticipating this was
going to be a flap, and I didn't want to get into litigation if there was a potential for us to
be able to resolve it. We have a temporary easement prepared. Both parties--Chuck is
going to (can't hear).
Norton: Should we give Gene any time tonight?
Atkins: You know, personally, I doubt he deserves the time (can't hear).
Norton: He deserves the time tonight. Why not?
Atkins: Chuck, understanding that you will have to deal with this ultimately on an agenda item
(can't hear).
Norton: I'd like to have him get his shot tonight.
Champion: (Can't hear).
Norton: (Can't hear).
Thornberry: On Highway 6 corridor, when we're talking about the granular shoulders--I mean, with
being replaced with asphalt paving: is there going to be a specific delineation between
the asphalt and the grass, or is it just going to be sort of?....
Norton: On Highway 67
Thornberry: I want it to look nice without curbs.
Schmadeke: Oh, yeah, asphalt'll end, the grass'll begin.
Thornberry: I know, but ....
[Several]: It'll look nice.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 47 of 69
Norton: But the asphalt'll go fight up to the pavement, I would guess, wouldn't it?
Schmadeke: On the one side and the grass on the other side, yeah.
Thornberry: And ifit's just a thin layer, it seems like grass and weeds grow up through that thing like
it does in the center of the ....You almost have to mow that median fight now, because
the weeds are so thick in there.
Champion: It's terrible
Lehman: Well, how thick is that asphalt going to be? Six inches? Four?
Schmadeke: You know, at least along the highway ....
[Several talking at once]
Thornberry: Because cars are going to use that shoulder when you get to the turns and stuff.
Schmadeke: Yeah. The median's four inches.
[Several talking at once]
Thornberry: I'm concerned that this thing is going to look like a patch job or it's not going to look
nice.
Schmadeke: No, it'll look nice.
Atkins: Chuck, is there somewhere around town with something you think remotely close to
what we're thinking about? I know I've seen it, but I just can't think of any ....
Schmadeke: Like Highway 1, North Dodge Street, were you have the two travel lanes, and then
you've got the ten-foot asphalt shoulder. It would be similar to that.
Norton: It's really going to be a tempting--or think that that shoulder is a lane (can't hear). You
have to put in a curb in there or something, I don't know what.
[Several talking at once]
Lehman: (Can't hear) interstate. You've got concrete and asphalt--you've got two different
colors. And you probably got a white line along the edge of (can't hear).
Schmadeke: That's fight.
Thornberry: You could call it "white line" or something.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 48 of 69
Norton: Well, I'm sure the DOT won't ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 49 of 69
CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 99-84 SIDE 2
Vanderhoef: And do they still do some rumble strips near the comers and stuff?.
Schmadeke: We try to avoid that in town. The noise is a problem, and drainage is a problem.
Lehman:
Well, rumble strips are generally associated with speed and stopping--high speed, like
along the interstate, and we're not going (can't hear).
Schmadeke: Right.
Thornberry:
One other little road project while you're here, and then you can go home. Is the Noah
Highway 1, with that big intersection for ACT--Dubuque Road, they've gouged it and
put holes in, and part of the road is gone on the right-hand side as you're approaching
Highway 1. They are going to fix that before winter?
Schmadeke: That is up around Moss Dairy--in that area?
Thornberry: Yeah.
Schmadeke: I'll take a look at it and see.
Thornberry: Yeah, between Moss Dairy and the road. There's some real holes and gouges that their
big equipment has put in there (can't hear).
Schmadeke: Okay, I'll take a look at that.
Thornberry: Thanks.
Lehman: All right. Gene.
Kroeger:
I'll try to make this very brief. I'm a businessman, too, and we certainly don't want to
put any undue strain on the businesses that are there. I mean, they have to make money,
and we're going to try to cooperate in any way we can. We need enough room to put
scaffolding up to lay the brick. And we have to have that. One of the staff, you know,
want bricks downtown, we want the building to look good, and we're going to try to do
everything to make it look good. We're willing to cooperate any way we can to get the
utilities underground if that's the best way. I 'm not an engineer or builder, but if that's
the best way, we'll do it as expediently as possible.
But this is not a unique situation. Clarks have built two buildings downtown on alleys
with similar type situations--maybe not quite as many businesses. When Marc Moen
builds his building where Mondo's is, you're facing a[n] even worse problem, because
there's a ton of deliveries on that alley. So this is not a unique situation. The alley is
also open to Burlington. Traffic can go both ways. But we will do everything in our
power that staff will let us do to make this work for those people, but we do want to
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 50 of 69
build lot line to lot line. As you know, property costs a lot down there, and we're
heavily involved currently in demolition and, of course, the architect's plans, so that for
us is absolutely not an option.
We have done the sitescaping on Court Street that staff recommended, which we hadn't
planned on doing, and we'll do everything we can to make it work. And we will meet
with the people if they choose to, but Knutson has already tried to do that and come to a
resolution.
Norton: Short of shrinking the building, that is.
Kroeger: Yeah, that's one thing we can't do.
Lehman:
Well, obviously, you know, we have asked Chuck and folks to look at this. Hopefully
we can come up with... probably (can't hear) solution, but probably more answers to
some of the questions we have, and I (can't hear).
Kroeger:
Well, access is the big one for sure. And we're willing to do--I mean, I don't know
exactly how much is required for scaffolding. If there's any way to lessen that, that's
fine. But ....
Kubby: Will you check into that?
Kroeger: I will.
Kubby:
Because that extra foot may just make the comfort level feel better for individuals (can't
hear).
Kroeger: Right. I know to build a building they want as much room as they can, but ....
Lehman: Gotta be safe.
Kroeger:
But, yeah, the alley. But it's gotta be safe, and we will work on that. If there's a foot or
two foot, we can do, we'll do it.
Vanderhoef: But you are going to have trucks and that's your staging area also, until you get to the
bricking part of it.
Kroeger:
Yeah, but they'll have to stay inside of the fence, you know. Thank you. Appreciate
your time.
Lehman: Okay. We're still on Council time.
Thornberry: I have a couple more things.
Lehman: All fight.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 51 of 69
Thornberry: On this invitation on this session for the Iowa Avenue streetscape. I don't want to
happen again what happened last time. Who's going?
Norton: What night is that, Dean?
Thornberry: It is ....
Lehman: 22nd. Is that two weeks?
Thomberry: Wednesday, September 22nd.
Lehman: Week from Wednesday night.
[Several talking at once]
Norton:
Lehman:
Wait a minute. It is a week from Wednesday night.
Week from this coming Wednesday night, the 22nd.
Thornberry: I'm going.
Champion: I'll go.
Lehman: You're going?
Norton: Now, wait a minute. Is this the second session?
Thomberry: It is a second session.
Vanderhoef: Need a little more detail.
[Several talking at once]
Lehman: I'll go. If I'm the fourth, I will leave.
[Several talking at once]
Norton: Well, I'm not going, but I'd like to know, when do we get particular briefing on it?
(Can't hear) the only briefings we get?
Vanderhoef: That's what' s bothering me is that anything that is being said at that meeting isn't being
heard by the entire Council.
Norton: That's what I mean. I find that very strange that we don't hear about it.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 52 of 69
Atkins:
Norton:
Kubby:
Atkins:
Norton:
Atkins:
Norton:
Champion:
Lehman:
Norton:
Lehman:
Lehman:
Kubby:
Oh, we thought through this project ....
No, but we haven't had an op--that was way earlier, but we haven't said anything lately.
But this part of the process to get it to us.
(Can't hear).
Well, it's going to jump to us at some point, okay.
If you want one sooner than later ....
No, I mean, I don't want one sooner than timely. Let's let them get public input. That's
why I don't understand why the Council should be involved so heavily when this is to
get public input, and then comes to us, doesn't it, in some kind of a more coherent
proposal? That's why it would seem to me not for our input but for more public input.
You're right, Dee. I didn't think about that.
Well, another thing is this: I think it's kind of nice to hear the comments. As a Council
person, I like to hear what the public says.
Is there a transcript of it?
Well, I'm not sure there is. Basically, and I don't think the public understands this,
really ....
That presentation to the public is, frankly, what we have authorized to be done. In other
words, we authorized them to proceed with the plan, we authorized parking in a certain
fashion. We didn't necessarily authorize lights to be a certain shape or the fences a
certain height, and that's basically what we're talking about.
Except that there were four of us there, and three of us did make comments that were
input comments.
[Several talking at once]
Thornberry: (Can't hear).
hear).
Kubby:
If there's going to be four next time, we'll call the meeting and then (can't
But the question that Dee and Dee are asking are not about the foursome. It's about the
process.
Thomberry: Well, you can go to the process, but (can't hear).
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 53 of 69
Norton: But, Dean, we don't mean if we could all go to the meeting, and it wouldn't be a meeting
if we're (can't hear).
Thornberry: But we make ....
Norton: No, I think we ought to restrain ourselves a little to the public. That'd be my feeling ....
Thomberry: Well, they had some things that were obviously wrong.
Kubby: From your point of view!
[Several talking at once]
Thomberry: No. What they said, it was a timing issue. And it was obviously wrong on the timing
issue, because they had the timing all wrong.
Vanderhoef: Was staff there?
Thornberry: And Ernie ....
Vanderhoef: Yes. And was staff capable of answering that question?
Norton: They should've. Staff should definitely do that.
Thornberry: All right, staff didn't do it, okay? Ernie said you can't do it in that time period, because
we're doing it in conjunction with this and this--that's right. Okay, they changed the
timing on the thing.
Norton: I can't believe there wasn't a staff person there.
Thornberry: There were staff people, but they didn't say it.
Norton: Then you take them aside and say, "Hey, that's a problem." And let them present the--
that'd be my feeling.
Thornberry: I'm just saying ifthere's four people want to go to the stupid meeting, let Marian know
so we can call it a meeting and go about our business here. Anybody--are there four
people going to go?
Champion: No, I'm not going.
Thornberry: Then it's not a problem.
Norton: I might go just to make it a problem, Dean. [Laughter]
O'Donnell: I'll go with you.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 54 of 69
[Several talking at once]
Dilkes: Wait a minute. Can we have some clarification here? Are there four of you are going or
there are not four of you are going?
Kubby: Let's all do thumbs up and thumbs down for a (can't hear).
Thornberry: Chances are there might be.
[Several talking at once]
Dilkes: Let's see. Thumbs up you're going, thumbs down you're not.
Lehman: We've got two going.
Thornberry: You're going to go?
Lehman: We've got two. We got no problem.
Dilkes: No problem.
[Several talking at once]
Thomberry: Ernie, Heritage Area Agency on Aging.
Lehman: Dean's got something here. Go ahead.
Thornberry: The Heritage Agency on Aging is sponsoring a fortan which all current Iowa City
Council members, all announced candidates for the Iowa City Council, and all members
of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors candidates are invited to discuss their views
on the current and future multipurpose usage of the Iowa City Senior Center. Now,
we're going to be voting on this at one time or another. There are two of us that would
be going, but we also have a task force made up of Dee Norton and Connie.
Champion: And I think we should go to that.
Norton: We presumably ought to go.
Lehman: Dean, I've talked to you, and I think the appropriate thing for us to do island this is up
to the Council, but from my perspectivewe have two people working on that 28-E
agreement now, and I think it would be appropriate for us to indicate to Bob Simpson
that Connie and Dee will be attending and reporting back to Council. After all, they are
the ones that are working with the 28-E agreement between us and the county.
Vanderhoef: I agree.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 55 of 69
Lehman: Obviously anybody can go that wants to go, but I think, from my perspective, that
Committee is gonna come up with the ideas of whatever they go into a 28-E agreement,
and I would personally prefer that they go representing Council and report back to the
Council.
O'Donnell: I agree.
Norton: Yeah.
[Several talking at once]
Thornberry: Okay, so you're going to write them a letter .... (Can't hear).
Lehman: We will send a letter.
Thornberry: So we won't be going.
Lehman: That's fight.
Champion: The bad part of that letter--I mean, we're two that need to be at that.
Several: That's fight.
Thornberry: One other thing is this park for the skateboarders. They're starting to have some
problems with that park. It's just a temporary thing at this point, fight?
Champion: Right.
Thomberry: The neighbors are getting a little upset with the language. Some of the younger kids are
getting, not just influenced, but told what they can do and what they can't do by the
older kids, so ifthat's the case, then maybe it needs to be supervised or .... I don't
know what the problems are. I think there are a lot of them.
Vanderhoef: Have you been out there?
Thornberry: I have not. I've been called (can't hear).
Norton: It's great. I've been there a number of times.
Vanderhoef: I have been out there three nights, and I have not seen one single thing. I haven't heard
one nasty word. The kids are having fun. The big folks are making way for the little
folk. I didn't see any problems.
Thornberry: That's just not what I'm getting (can't hear) from my telephone calls.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 56 of 69
O'Donnell: Wait a minute, though. There is a problem out there.
Vanderhoef: What is it?
O'Donnell: We've heard it. It's foul language, it's trash around ....
Vanderhoef: We have one letter.
[Several talking at once]
Norton: I haven't had any.
Thomberry: One and I don't have names .... One was their yotmg kid was being bullied by the
bigger ones and not being able to do what they wanted. I don't know.
Champion: But, Dean, that can happen on any playground.
[Several talking at once]
Thomberry: Of course. I'm just telling you what I'm getting and reporting to the Council what I'm
getting. So take it for what it's worth.
Kubby: What you observed is similar to what I observed happening out in back here of the Civic
Center, where people were very cooperative. They were doing tough stuff.... They
were working out.
Thornberry: I'll tell them to call you, I'll tell them to call you, then.
Vanderhoef: One of the things that I did is I stood around, and I visited with some parents that were
around there, too. And it was real interesting that they thought it was great, and a couple
of questions that I asked, in particular was "Do you like this location?" They thought it
was absolutely a perfect location, because it was away from high-traffic street and well
protected in there. The only thing they were asking for was some more lights that shoot
into the parking lot rather than towards the ball fields and the tennis courts and so forth.
Thornberry: In Terry Trueblood's letter, he said he got some complaints, too. So I'm not the only
one getting the complaints.
Vanderhoef: We got the letter. And another thing that I specifically was asking was "Would you
allow your child to travel down to Ten'ill Mill and in that area and use their
skateboards?" And they said "No."
Lehman: You wouldn't expect them to from that side of town.
Vanderhoef: No, it was because of the location of the high-traffic street and how you have to get there
and those things.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 57 of 69
O'Donnell:
Norton:
Lehman:
Dilkes:
Lehman:
Thornberry:
Lehman:
Thornberry:
Dilkes:
Atkins:
Norton:
The question is, is this something that's going to need supervision regardless of where
we put it?
I know the Park and Rec Commission has looked at this, and I think they ought to be
looking at it. Surely they will make a recommendation to us about how it might be
handled. I mean, they've got personnel problems. I don't know what they're going to
recommend, but sure they're on top of this.
Well, I think that we should--Eleanor, (can't hear).
Dennis and I and Terry Trueblood and Kevin O'Malley have a meeting scheduled for
later this month, I believe, to talk about all these issues. The supervision issue and those
kind of things.
And we'll hear from you then.
So, what do I tell the people who called, that's all I want to know.
Well, you just heard it. They're meeting.
They're having a meeting later on in September.
[Several talking at once]
I can get you the exact date of when that staff meeting is.
(Can't hear) the 2 1st (Can't hear). The important thing is if you get a complaint,
obviously talk to them. And please ask them: write it down, doesn't have to be long-
winded, send it, because it goes to the Parks and Recreation Commission. They are
intending to make a recommendation to you about these things. We're going to get
everything you want up in front of them.
This is bound to be an evolutionary thing, and I think it's great. I think that, I've
watched it, too, and it's really wonderful.
Vanderhoef: I do too.
Thornberry: That's all I've got.
Lehman: All right.
Vanderhoef: It's just so much fun to watch them.
O'Donnell: The Terrell Mill Park down there.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 58 of 69
Lehman:
O'Donnell:
Norton:
O'Donnell:
Norton:
Lehman:
Yeah.
That's all student parking, and it's all full. Sunday moming from like ....
Which one of the?...
The park down near Terrell Mill. It is full. The entire parking lot is full. If you want to
go in there and have a picnic on a Sunday moming, you're (can't hear).
They're crossing the neighbor line, yeah.
Right.
Vanderhoef: Are these registered cars?
O'Donnell: These are all Mayflower kids. I mean they ....
Norton: But there's no student registration.
Vanderhoef: Well, but they're supposed to be registered, and if they're registered, then they buy a
ticket ....
Atkins:
Lehman:
Atkins:
O'Donnell:
Champion: Maybe we could meter it.
Lehman: No, please .... [Laughter]
[Several talking at once]
O'Donnell:
Atkins:
Champion:
Not on City property, now. What happens is the kids pick the cars up to use on the
weekend, they take them there, they park them, they head back out on .... It's a parking
lot (can't hear).
It's a City parking lot.
It's a City parking lot that's (can't hear) full.
It's exactly that--it's a full parking lot.
Anyone can use that park. But I think they have to be gone at 10 o'clock.
Yeah. And the difficulty is that, to my knowledge, everything's entirely legal. I mean,
the students are allowed to park there and use it like anyone else. The difficulty gets--
on the weekends it's full. Now, during the week (can't hear).
But we can have a plan ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 59 of 69
Vanderhoef: Don't we have a City rule that says at 10 o'clock our parks close?
Several: Yes.
Kubby: But it's not illegal to car park there.
Lehman: (Can't hear).
O'Donnell: But you've got to park your car and walk into a (can't hear).
Vanderhoef: Well, that's in a park.
Norton:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
Lehman:
Champion:
The park closes at 10 o'clock.
Except remember now, when we have things going on at Hancher, there are a lot of
people that park in--park a lot later than 10:00. So you're going to be pretty careful
about ....
I don't think we enforce parking lots that are (can't hear).
That's what I mean.
I don't think we do. Okay.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Vanderhoef: Okay, I've got a couple of things.
Lehman: Dee.
Vanderhoef: Okay. We have a letter about the security lights for rental property. And in particular it
was ....
Several: In where? What letter?
Vanderhoef: Not this packet. Earlier.
Thornberry: Security lights for what?
Atkins: Security door.
Vanderhoef: Door, okay.
Lehman: Door. We got a report back on that.
Atkins: It's "Harmande," or something like that.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 60 of 69
Vanderhoef: And there was something also then said about lights in that. And I wasn't clear what
lights were required around the apartments or in the apartments in the corridors, and so
forth.
Lehman: I think that's probably all part of housing inspection.
Vanderhoef: And this is what I'd like to know about, because obviously we want it safe for people to
get in and out, and we don't want to put a lot of expense onto rental properties or any of
those things, so if we can just look (can't hear), okay?
Norton: Well, we had a report from HIS.
Lehman: Right.
Atkins: (Can't hear) a report on the exterior security door, and they recommended against.
Norton: And they recommended against that (can't hear).
Several: Right.
Atkins: The lights, I don't recall (can't hear).
Norton: I don't remember the light thing either.
Vanderhoef: Okay, and just a comment was that I was real pleased to see the Gallo Report on his use
during the first year. And it just occurred to me that we've used him quite a bit, and
maybe it would be of value to send this report and an additional thank-you to folk who
gave us money for our K-9 unit and who are continuing to support our K-9 unit. They
might like to report to their organizations and the paper.
Atkins: (Can't hear).
Vanderhoef: And City Park rides and concessions. Do we have an opportunity to get the cotton-
candy machine from?... [Laughter]. Whatever! I just am curious about that. And that
was all I needed for today.
O'Donnell: Wait a minute. I think we need an answer to that question. [Laughter]
Norton: I wanted to ask--Marian, are we still looking at the question of cigarette permitting
process?
Karr: Yes, we are.
Norton: That's still in the (can't hear).
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999
Karr:
Norton:
Karr:
Norton:
Atkins:
Norton:
Atkins:
Lehman:
Champion:
Dilkes:
Lehman:
Norton:
Atkins:
Dilkes:
Norton:
O'Donnell:
Norton:
Champion:
Council Work Session Page 61 of 69
Yes, you should have something next week.
I noticed that something from the state urging to step up that enforcement, but I hope
that isn't inconsistent with possibly simplifying our process.
Well, I think that's a recent concern. I want to discuss that with Eleanor, but there is a
plan to have it to you by next meeting.
And we got a letter that came to me that I sent to Marian to send to all of you about
street storage, but surely something' s got to be done about it. Where do we stand on that
street-storage question? (Can't hear).
Moving their cars you mean?
Not street storage of the car but sleeping in the car, living in the car.
I saw it today for the first time.
Well, Eleanor, that probably is something that you should give us some sort of a take on.
There are two or three letters here tonight from people complaining about someone
living, sleeping in their car.
Someone just wrote a book on how to live in your car.
Yeah, I saw one of those. We'll have to take a look at that issue. There's a number
of....
I think we should probably leave that with you for the time being.
Has anyone responded to that particular request, or should I just tell her that's going to
the City Attorney for review of what we could do about it?
That will certainly happen because I'd asked Eleanor's advice on it. I saw it today for
the first time.
Yeah, I just saw it today for the first time, and I'm ....
Well, I (can't hear) a couple of days ago, and I sent it on. I would just respond and say
it's been forwarded to the attomey to look into then.
She does have a legitimate concern, though. I read that ....
It seems pretty strange.
What seems strange?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 62 of 69
Kubby:
Norton:
Dilkes:
Champion:
Dilkes:
0'Donnell:
Kubby:
But it could be a conflict of values--civil liberties issues against neighborhood safety
and just how to work through all that.
It wasn't all simple, fight.
Yeah, that's a pretty complicated ....
Just because someone sleeps in their car doesn't mean they're dangerous (can't hear).
It's a pretty complicated issue.
Well, but this guy did question--there was something about an attack up in that area.
Right. But you can't create a law because of that (can't hear) applies to everybody.
Vanderhoef: The point is, it's easy to point the finger that direction.
Lehman:
Well, that could be a matter of public health issues to living in a car. And that may
(can't hear).
Dilkes: Well, I guess ....
[Several talking at once]
Dilkes:
Norton:
Dilkes:
O'Donnell:
Lehman:
Kubby:
Lehman: Well, that's eutirely another issue.
Thornberry: No, it's not.
[Several talking at once]
Why don't you tell me what you're interested in?
No, no, no. I know what the problem is that's been identified (can't hear), but what
would you like to accomplish?
Do we have any ordinances--is there anything that speaks to the whole question?
(Can't hear).
No, no. I know we don't have any ordinances that would prohibit that situation. So
what is your interest in doing?
I don't think we need one.
I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the public to have people living in their
automobiles. I don't think it's a matter of(can't hear).
Then we'd better do something about it before it piles (can't hear).
But I think living in cars is probably not a good ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 63 of 69
Norton:
She said I'm here to (can't hear) an ordinance prohibiting people living in cars on City
streets or in City parking lots or whatever. Seemed to me we ought to see whether there
are some ordinances of that kind. I can't believe that's an appropriate situation.
Thornberry: Not long tenn. I could see somebody taking a nap in a car, whatever. But living in a car
inside the City limits on City property, I don't think is appropriate.
[Several talking at once]
Norton:
Now the other thing I have was that we met with bar owners, remember? And we've
gone nothing, and we've been considering what we might do, and I wonder, are we still
thinking about any possible steps that we can actually take, you know, whether it's a[n]
under-21 ban or underage ban before 9 o'clock, or?... Are we giving up on that or are
we pursuing it? Well, in response to the difficulties with underage drinking, are we
thinking about banning 21-year-olds or after 9 o'clock?
Champion: I'm not.
Norton:
Well, I mean we heard all these problems. We're not responding to them, is what I'm
trying to say.
O'Donnell: Dee, I don't think it will accomplish anything. The sophistication of the fake ID's are
incredible.
Norton: I thought we had a new ID that was going to be ....
O'Donnell:
(Can't hear), but I mean, it's just a matter of time until they copy that. But the problem
is that it's against the law to drink unless you're 21, and, you know, they're still going to
drink when they go downtown.
Norton: Well, Ames is the only place that bans under 21 after 9 o'clock.
O'Donnell: But that's what I'm saying. With the fake ID's (can't hear).
Norton:
Well, I don't know whether they do or not. I just feel that we have not followed up that
meeting to think are there any steps we should be taking, because that's not it.
Champion:
You know, if you can say you have to be 21 to be in a bar after 9 o'clock, we say you
have to be 21 to drink. It's those same kids that have the fake ID's that are drinking as
underage people in the bars. Who else (can't hear) into the bars? You're making a law
that's totally unenforceable.
Norton: We're making them go buy booze somewhere else.
Champion: Right.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 64 of 69
Norton: That's the argument that people would make. But my only point is that we had a
meeting, and all we did was listen, but we did not decide formally whether do or not do
anything.
Lehman: I think that Dee's concem is, do we want to respond? Obviously there has been some
concern from the University. It's also obviously in the papers a lot. Is that something
we want to discuss? It's not just underage, it's do we want to limit the number of liquor
licenses? There are a number of different things we talked about. Is there interest in
pursuing those issues relative to underage drinking?
O'Dounell: I think Connie hit it fight on the head. It's an unenforceable law. You can't do it.
Norton: Are there other steps we might take? How about limiting the number of bars?
[Several talking at once]
Thornberry: Absolutely not.
Champion: Can you imagine? I mean, you would be creating (can't hear).
Thornberry: It would be like your saying (can't hear).
[Several talking at once]
Norton: Are there any steps we ought to be thinking about more seriously?
Champion: You know, when the University takes alcohol seriously, then it can come and do the job.
Norton: No, they're trying.
Champion: Oh, no. As long as they allow ....
Norton: I don't know what they're doing.
Champion: They advertise it in their student newspapers. As long as they serve alcohol at
University functions, allow it at football games--who are they trying to kid? They want
us to solve the problem for them.
Lehman: I don't think we're going to make any progress on the alcohol issue today. Now, is there
anything?... Go ahead, Dee.
Norton: I had a complaint about striping on the parking. People can't tell where parking lines
start and stop on Iowa Avenue, for example, so you get, you know, three people on four
meters.
Atkins: You didn't get the phone call yet?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 65 of 69
Norton:
Atkins:
Norton:
Atkins:
No.
It's going to be done this month.
Okay, good. Will that get that new paint--that fancy new paint?
No, that's our regular ....
[Several talking at once]
Norton: No, I was talking about the other section out east on Iowa Avenue, all the way up. It's a
real problem. People have a terrible time. Even uptown, you see three cars where you
could have gotten four or five.
Thornberry: Hey, how come they do on First Avenue and First Avenue, Coralville and Highway 67
How can they have striping that goes around there on the double-lane left and the
double-lane right. And it stays, but we can't .... I'm sorry, but ....
Lehman: It's painted at 3 o'clock every morning.
Thomberry: Well, it's there.
[Several talking at once]
Thornberry: You can't get it to do it out on the comer of Riverside Drive where it turns into High ....
O'Donnell: There's a lot to that one, Emie said, because they do paint that frequently. They've got
less paint. And the stuff we put on that I've seen is really doing a good job.
Lehman: The new stuff.
Norton: The expensive stuff?.
Thornberry: Then why can't it work out there on the comer of Highway 6 and Highway 67
Atkins: Do you want the honest answer?
Lehman: Yeah.
Atkins: No idea. [Laughter]
Lehman: Okay.
Norton: All right. The last item I want to mention is that we've got to get north commercial area
together and talk about, are we going to do anything about moving that hangar?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 66 of 69
Lehman: Oh, yes. We will be getting together, you and I, with the Airport folks soon.
Norton: Okay. Let me know--soon.
Lehman:
All right. I've got a couple things. Karin Franklin has asked that the City and County
Planning staff have been working on the fringe area agreement, which, I think, expires
the end of December. And they've gone as far as they can go. They need some things to
be discussed by a joint committee of Council and the Board of Supervisors. I will serve
on that committee. We need one other person. Mike has indicated that he would like to
serve on that committee. Is that all right with the rest of the Council? This is the fringe-
area agreement. Basically, I think the fringe-area agreement is done. I mean, I think it's
agreed to by the two staffs, and it's a matter of just ....It will come back to the Council
(can't hear).
Vanderhoef: This is just the review, not the total rewrite. Is that right?
Lehman: We're not going to totally rewrite it. I don't know that there 's anything wrong with it.
Vanderhoef: Yeah. That's what I mean.
[Several talking at once]
Vanderhoef: It's a review, because that was put in when we wrote it three years ago that it would be
reviewed (can't hear).
Well, it isn't a review. The thing expires if we don't renew it. And there may be
something done to an agreement that does not expire--that just requires review.
The other thing is I got a request from Linda Severson for review of the joint-fund
hearings. Last year Connie and Karen worked on that committee. I'd like to ask Connie
to serve on that committee again, and we need one other Council person to serve.
Vanderhoef: When are they starting?
Lehman: They start on Wednesday, November 10th. That's an orientation meeting.
Champion: I think it'd be good for like, Mike is going to be here next year, and somebody should
always be on it at least once, I think.
O'Donnell: I will be glad to do that.
Thornberry: You'll learn a lot, Mike.
Lehman: All right. I'm going to give the schedule to Madan, who keeps track of us all.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 67 of 69
Champion: And we don't need to go to the orientation meeting.
Karr:
There is a conflict with the orientation meeting with Legislative Night, too, so you'll
have some choices.
[Several talking at once]
Lehman:
All right. Mike and Connie will serve on that committee, and I'll let Linda know that so
if there' s a change in meeting times or whatever, she can let you know.
Okay. I don't think there's anything else that we have to do for me. Anybody else?
Champion:
Well, I just have a question, I think, just of process and such. Dee and I are now kind of
doing a draft of our agreement with County people and the Senior Center. I tell you,
we're not getting very far, folks. But we're setting our--we've got a little bit. So I
don't know how you want to receive the information on it. You want to wait until we
have a draft that we can agree to? And then bring that to you? And then tell you what
the County doesn't agree with what we agreed to? You know, I don't know how you
want to (can't hear).
Lehman:
I really think that I prefer that because I think--obviously we can respond to the draft.
And it's a lot easier to respond to something than it is to just respond to concepts.
Obviously you're not going to agree with Connie says, and they won't agree with
everything we say, but...
Kubby: But how do we give them direction?
Norton:
Well, what we have is this process we have developed--we've just about refined a draft.
We're going to fix it a little bit further. But we're going to give that to them, and it's not
the Council's response; it's a very tentative proposal. They are to give us theirs. In fact,
they've got one--none of us are looking at it until we finish ours. And we're going to
exchange them, fight? And then we must meet on the 24th with them to discuss these
two. Now, we think this will put some .... I think Connie's quite fight. We're
probably going to end up with some difficulties, but at that point we'll see whether we
can go forward a combined package that would come back for your consideration. I
don't think that you'd want to fiddle with the drafts.
Champion: No. That's right.
Kubby:
No, but even us knowing what general areas of any issues that you're talking about ....
I don't need like a narrative, five-page report but one page .... (Can't hear) the five
issues that we're talking about. Just so we're informed on that ....
Champion:
Maybe when we do those drafts, when we first talk about those at the meeting on the
24th, we should just list those issues and see what everybody gets them, because we all
know very much what they are, hopefully.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 68 of 69
Kubby:
Lehman:
Kubby:
Champion:
Thomberry:
Champion:
Norton:
Kubby:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Thomberry:
Champion:
Lehman:
Karr:
Champion:
They're about space, they're about, you know, whatever.
Okay.
That would be really helpful, because otherwise we're totally in the dark until
something' s in front of us.
'Cause I see some things falling apart here, just like we're (can't hear), and so I don't
want you guys getting phone calls from people and saying, "You're going to close the
Senior Center." You know.
You know, I did have a call, Connie, and the senior person said that, you know, "We can
live without that ramp across there, that parking garage, if we had a door that we could
get out of the Senior Center and into the (can't hear)," but I understand that Ecumenical
Towers won't let the Senior Center people through their door.
I'm sure that's true.
Because I think Joe looked at that question, didn't he?
There' s some security issues there and some federal-funding issues there that make it
more complicated.
That's too bad. I mean, it's too bad they couldn't use that door. That would solve a lot
of problems.
Yeah, Joe looked at it real carefully, I'm sure, because that come up early that there's a
wall there.
I'm just saying, if they could use that door, that would solve the problem for the Senior
Center, getting from the Senior Center to the parking lot. But they can't use that door.
That's too bad.
It is too bad.
Madan, you have one thing. I saw you.
Just one thing. You may be hearing some comments regarding a policy for hanging
banners. As chair of the United Way campaign, we were going to hang banners this fall.
And Iowa City and Coralville have been discussing possibly charging for that. And
Coralville apparently has implemented a charge policy; Iowa City has not.
For United Way banners?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399
September 13, 1999 Council Work Session Page 69 of 69
Lehman:
Champion:
Karr:
O'Donnell:
Kubby:
Lehman:
Karr:
O'Donnell:
Champion:
Norton:
Lehman:
Kubby:
[Several]:
Norton:
For all banners, except City-sponsored events. So, Coralville will be discussing it
tomorrow night.
Hold it. We would charge ourselves when we put up banners?
United Way is an agency.
Well, it's not a City-sponsored event.
But we don't charge for the banners for United Way, folks.
Or the Red Cross or the Arts (can't hear) downtown.
We don't charge for banners for anything, do we?
Not yet. We're just discussing. So far we are not, but we are discussing that.
I think if we can get a consensus here tonight, I think that it'll kind of influence what
Coralville does tomorrow.
Oh, I'm not going to charge United Way for their banners, I'll tell you that.
But didn't we have Hancher Celebration banners up?
We've had everything--Mercy Hospital, Hospice, the Chamber of Commerce,
Downtown Association, City stuff, University of Iowa ....
Great community pride things, and we should not charge--keep it as it is.
No charge !
Another freebie.
Lehman: Anybody else? Good night.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 13, 1999.
WS091399